Computerized method and system for estimating an effect on liability based on the stopping distance of vehicles

ABSTRACT

Computer-implemented methods and systems for estimating liability for a vehicle accident are provided. In one embodiment, at least one stopping distance of a vehicle may be estimated. In some embodiments, a stopping distance may include an approximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed to stop to avoid the accident. A perception distance that may correspond to an approximate distance from the accident at which the vehicle sensed danger of an accident may be estimated. In certain embodiments, an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident using the perception distance may be assessed. Some embodiments may include estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention generally relates to estimation of liability in anaccident. Certain embodiments relate to computer-implemented systems andmethods for estimating liability in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Description of the Related Art

A typical motor vehicle accident claims organization may face a numberof challenges in processing claims. Some of these challenges may includeassessment of liability, threat of litigation, and experience level ofclaims adjusters. A motor vehicle accident claims organization may addvalue to the liability assessment process by producing a solution thatenhances the liability assessment process and increases theeffectiveness of the claims adjuster.

Assessment of liability is one important challenge facing a claimsorganization. It is believed that a large percentage of motor vehicleaccident claims may be assessed at 100% liability against the insuredwhen the claimant may actually share in the fault. While it may bedifficult to pinpoint exact reasons for this practice among claimsadjusters, several factors influencing the tendency to assess 100%liability against the insured may include, but are not limited to,ineffective negotiation, large case loads, inadequate time toeffectively assess liability, and a desire to settle claims quickly toavoid litigation.

Considering the litigious nature of claimants, and the presence ofclaimant counsel during negotiations, claims adjusters may need torigorously investigate characteristics of a motor vehicle accidentscene, duties of the insured, and contributing actions of the claimantbefore assessing liability.

The experience level of claims adjusters may typically be low due to alack of longevity in such a position. Over the years, a dramaticshortening of the training regimen for most new claims adjusters mayreduce the effectiveness of claims adjusters. In addition, the lack ofexperienced claims adjusters available to advise and teach new claimsadjusters worsens the situation. Furthermore, new claims adjusters maynot be as knowledgeable in claims adjusting practices and the laws oftheir jurisdiction, as are senior claims adjusters, and consequentlythey may make “best guess” assessments. Therefore, a lack of trained andexperienced claims adjusters may tend to produce an inadequate and/orinequitable assessment process.

Accordingly, it may be advantageous to provide a system and method toassess fault or liability in motor vehicle accidents by relying onexpert knowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters regardingthe influence of multiple characteristics of a motor vehicle accidentproportional to the liability of the claimant and the insured.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An embodiment of the present invention relates to a computer-implementedmethod for estimating liability in an accident.

In one embodiment, liability estimation in a vehicle accident may bebased on multiple characteristics that describe the accident.Characteristics that describe either a real, a past, or a theoreticalaccident may include but are not limited to, roadway configuration,accident type, traffic controls at the vehicle accident scene, right ofway, and impact points of each motor vehicle. The right of way may beestablished from real characteristics of a vehicle accident andquestions about the real characteristics. At least one of the realcharacteristics may include: roadway configuration, accident type, rightof way, or traffic control. Alternatively, a claims adjuster may specifythe right of way.

The real set of characteristics may be compared to past or theoreticalcharacteristics to determine a set of matching characteristics. Theliability for the real accident may be based on an estimate of liabilityassociated with the matching set of past or theoretical characteristics.The estimated liability for the real accident determined in this way maybe a base liability.

The liabilities associated with the characteristics of the past ortheoretical accident may be associated with an impact group in additionto other characteristics of a real accident. An impact group may includea pair of impact points for a past or theoretical accident. A pair ofimpact points may include an impact point for each of two vehiclesinvolved in an accident. Each pair of impact points may be associatedwith two values of base liability: a lower bound of liability and anupper bound of liability. One set of values may correspond to onevehicle with the right of way, and the other set of values maycorrespond to the other vehicle having the right of way. Each of thepairs of impact points in a given impact group may have the same baseliability and lower and upper bound of liability.

Effects on the liability due to factors specific to the vehicle, driver,and environment may be taken into account by identifying specificfactors that may be relevant to the real accident. Factors for past ortheoretical accidents may be associated with estimates of a contributionto liability. An estimate of the contribution of the factors toliability in the real accident may be determined by associating thefactors relevant to the real accident with the estimates of thecontribution of the factors for the past or theoretical accidents.

The contribution of the factors to the liability may also be adjusted.The adjustments may take into account sets of characteristicscorresponding to the real accident and/or the preference of a claimsorganization. A situational weight (i.e., an adjustment related to thecharacteristics of a specific accident) may be based on knowledgeobtained from experienced claims adjusters. Alternatively, thesituational weight may be inferred from answers to a series of questionsrelating to the factor and accident.

The individual factors may be adjusted by a ranking factor that accountsfor the preference of the claims organization. Furthermore, the sum ofthe contribution of the factors to liability may be adjusted by a factorinfluence that may also account for the preference of a claimsorganization.

The contribution of a factor may be so significant that it may benecessary to perform a further adjustment. Such a factor may adjust theliability beyond the lower and upper bounds defined for the liability.The contribution of the factor may be ignored and an absolute liabilityvalue may be assigned to be the liability estimate.

The liability might be expressed as a range rather than a single value.The range may be created using a range radius. The range radius may be apercentage value that may be added to and subtracted from the finalliability to create the range.

A knowledge acquisition utility may be used to determine impact groupsfor a given set of characteristics of a past or theoretical accident. Animpact group may be a collection of pairs of impact points. Each of thepairs of impact points in the impact group may have the same liabilityand lower and upper bounds of liability. Experienced claims adjustersmay use the knowledge acquisition utility to determine the number ofimpact groups for each set of characteristics and the impact point pairsin each impact group.

A claims organization may employ experienced claims adjusters to use atuning utility to estimate characteristics and properties of past ortheoretical accidents such as base liabilities and lower and upperbounds of liabilities. Characteristics and properties may be enteredinto a knowledge acquisition utility associated with the tuning utility.The user may then run pre-configured test scenarios, analyze theresults, and refine the characteristics and properties as necessary. Theprocedure may be repeated until the user is satisfied.

A computer-implemented method for estimating liability in a vehicleaccident may include several steps. The user may provide to a computersystem claim data regarding the vehicle accident in a graphical userinterface. The user may provide to a computer system data for eachvehicle involved in a vehicle accident. The user may provide dataregarding characteristics of the vehicle accident. To assist the user inproviding data regarding characteristics of the vehicle accident, thecomputer system may display graphical representations of thecharacteristics such as the roadway configurations, accident types, andimpact points. The user may identify discords within the entered data.The user may determine a most likely set of characteristics associatedwith the real accident. As needed, the user may consult a legalreference system to determine legal information specific to thejurisdiction in which the accident occurred. The user may be providedwith an assessment report that summarizes the estimate of liability,data used to determine the estimate, and negotiating points regardingthe estimate.

The assessment of liability in a vehicle accident may involve analysisof multiple statements of the description of an accident. In oneembodiment, the consistency between different witness statements may beassessed. A graphical user interface used for estimating liability maybe used to collect information from witness statements. The computersystem may compare details given in each witness description. The systemmay present the results of the comparison in tabular form, listing foreach party, its version of the detail described. Details withinconsistent versions may be noted in the tabulation of results.

In one embodiment for analysis of witness statements, a graphical userinterface for estimating liability may be combined with accidentreconstruction methodology to assess the credibility of details inwitness accident descriptions. Accident reconstruction software may beapplied to determine details relating to speed, time, and distance ofthe vehicles involved in the accident. The credibility of a witnessstatement may be evaluated according to its consistency with the resultsof the accident reconstruction software.

In one embodiment, a graphical user interface for estimating liabilitymay be combined with a credibility assessment method to create areliable accident description. The details relevant to the accident maybe tested by a credibility assessment method such as accidentreconstruction software. The most credible version of the details maythen be combined into a single, reliable version of an accidentdescription.

In one embodiment, a method may include accessing claim data for one ormore claims relating to a vehicle accident from a first database on acomputer system. The claim data may be stored on a second database onthe computer system. In an embodiment, the second database may beassociated with a method and system for estimating liability in thevehicle accident. The method may further include accessing the claimdata for one or more of the claims on the second database for use by themethod and system for estimating liability in a vehicle accident.

Some embodiments may include accessing claim data for one or more claimsrelating to a vehicle accident from a first database on a computersystem following a user-defined time period. Other embodiments mayinclude accessing claim data in response to a request from a user.

In an embodiment, a method may include accessing claim information on acomputer system required by a pre-configured claim report for anaccident from a database if a user-specified condition is met. Thepre-configured claim report may be created from the accessed claiminformation. In some embodiments, the pre-configured claim report may besent to a user-specified location. Alternatively, claim information on acomputer system required by a pre-configured claim report for anaccident may be accessed from a database periodically following auser-specified time period. In other embodiments, a method may includerequesting a pre-configured claim report on a computer system relatingto an accident.

One embodiment of a method of estimating liability for an accident mayinclude recording vehicle data of a vehicle relating to the accident inmemory on a computer system. In an embodiment, the recorded vehicle datamay be stored on the computer system. Some embodiments may includedecoding the vehicle data. An effect of the vehicle data on theliability of a party in the accident may be estimated.

Other embodiments may include recording vehicle data in memory on afirst computer system. The recorded vehicle data may be stored on thefirst computer system. The method may further include retrieving thestored vehicle data from the first computer system with a secondcomputer system. An effect of the vehicle data on liability of a partyin the accident may be estimated.

An embodiment of a method for assessing a claim in a vehicle accident ona computer system may include estimating injuries to one or more vehicleoccupants in the vehicle accident. The injuries to the one or morevehicle occupants may be estimated from one or more variables. Themethod may further include estimating damages due to injuries of the oneor more vehicle occupants. Some embodiments may include estimating theliability of parties in the accident. Adjusted damages may be determinedfrom the estimated damages and the liability of the parties.

In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability for an accident on acomputer system may include estimating pre-impact speeds of one or morevehicles in the accident from the crush damage of the one or morevehicles. The method may further include estimating an effect of thepre-impact speeds of the one or more vehicles on the liability ofparties in the accident.

In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system may include estimating a theoreticalpath of a reference vehicle and estimating a theoretical path of areacting vehicle. The reacting vehicle may react to a danger of anaccident with the reference vehicle. The method may further includeassessing the opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.Some embodiments may also include estimating a contribution to liabilityto the reacting vehicle based on the opportunity of the reacting vehicleto avoid the accident.

In certain embodiments, a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system may include estimating a theoreticalpath of a straight traveling vehicle. The theoretical path of a turningvehicle that is in the same lane at the completion of a turn as thestraight traveling vehicle may then be estimated. The opportunity of atleast one vehicle traveling at a specified speed to avoid the accidentmay be assessed. A contribution to liability to at least one vehiclebased on the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident may beestimated.

Another embodiment of a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident may include estimating an actual speed of a vehicle involved inan accident. At least one specified speed of a vehicle involved in theaccident may be provided to the computer system. The actual speed maythen be compared to the at least one specified speed. The method maythen include estimating an effect on liability based on the comparison.

In some embodiments, a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system may include selecting a specified speedof a vehicle involved in an accident. The method may then includeassessing whether the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accidentat the specified speed. An effect on liability based on the opportunityto avoid the accident may then be estimated.

Other embodiments of a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system may include estimating a speed foravoiding of a vehicle, which may be an approximate speed that allows thevehicle an opportunity to avoid the accident. A specified speed of thevehicle involved in an accident may then be provided. The speed foravoiding may be compared to the specified speed. The method may furtherinclude assessing an opportunity to avoid the accident based on thecomparison. In an embodiment, an effect on liability based on theopportunity to avoid the accident may be estimated.

Another embodiment of a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system may include estimating at least onestopping distance of a vehicle. A stopping distance may be anapproximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed tostop to avoid the accident. The method may also include estimating aperception distance, which may be an approximate distance from theaccident at which the vehicle sensed danger of an accident. Anopportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident may be assessed usingthe perception distance. In one embodiment, an effect on liability basedon the opportunity to avoid the accident may be estimated.

Certain embodiments of a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident using a computer system may include estimating a theoreticalpath of at least one point on a reference vehicle and at least one pointon a reacting vehicle. The opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoidthe accident using the theoretical path of at least one point may beassessed. The method may further include estimating an effect onliability for the reacting vehicle based on the opportunity of thereacting vehicle to avoid the accident.

Some embodiments of a method of estimating liability for a vehicleaccident may include estimating coordinates of a collision area thatincludes a collision point. The collision area may include a locationwhere a reference vehicle and a reacting vehicle are likely to occupy atimpact. A time for the reference vehicle to clear the collision area maybe estimated. A time for the reacting vehicle to reach the collisionarea may also be estimated, such that the reacting vehicle avoids theaccident. The method may further include assessing an opportunity of thereacting vehicle to avoid the accident using the estimated time for thereacting vehicle to reach the collision area. In an embodiment acontribution to liability to the reacting vehicle based on theopportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident may beassessed.

In one embodiment, a method may include providing a computer systemconfigured to access a memory such that the memory may include atheoretical path of at least one vehicle in an accident. The memory mayinclude a collision area. The collision area may be displayed as agraphical image in a graphical user interface. The method may furtherinclude displaying at least one vehicle as a graphical image in agraphical user interface. In one embodiment, the theoretical path may bedisplayed as a graphical image in a graphical user interface.

Some embodiments of a method of estimating liability for an accidentusing a computer system may include generating one or more questionsrelating to an accident. One or more sets of answers corresponding tothe one or more questions may be provided to the computer system. A setof answers may include answers to a question obtained from one or moresources. The method may further include estimating the effect of atleast one factor on liability using at least one answer.

In certain embodiments, a method of estimating liability for an accidentusing a computer system may include generating a question on one or moretopics relating to the accident. The method may further includeproviding a set of answers corresponding to the question to the computersystem. The set of answers may include one or more answers obtained fromone or more sources. An answer may be selected from the set of answersfor use in estimating liability in the accident. In an embodiment, theeffect of a factor on liability using the selected answer may beestimated.

In some embodiments, a question may be associated with one or moreanswers. At least one answer may be associated with a set of additionalquestions. An answer associated with a set of additional questions maybe then be selected. The method may further include generating a set ofadditional questions associated with the selected answer.

In another embodiment; a method may include displaying a first screen ona computer system for entering answers to a question relating to anaccident from two or more sources. Two or more answers from the two ormore sources may be entered on the first screen. The method may furtherinclude displaying a second screen for selecting an answer from the twoor more answers for use in estimating liability. The user may be allowedto select an answer for use in estimating the effect of a factor onliability on the second screen.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A better understanding of the present invention may be obtained when thefollowing detailed description of preferred embodiments is considered inconjunction with the following drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a network diagram of a wide area networksuitable for implementing various embodiments.

FIG. 2 depicts an embodiment of a computer system suitable forimplementing various embodiments.

FIG. 3 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a liability estimationprocess.

FIG. 4 is a diagram representing accident types according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 5 is a diagram representing roadway configurations according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 6 is a roadway configuration/accident type matrix of applicabilityaccording to one embodiment.

FIG. 7 a is a flow chart for determining the right of way according toone embodiment.

FIG. 7 b is a group of flow charts corresponding to the flow chart inFIG. 5 a according to one embodiment.

FIG. 8 a is a diagram illustrating impact points on a motor vehicleaccording to one embodiment.

FIG. 8 b is a table of impact groups for roadway configuration/accidenttype combinations according to one embodiment.

FIG. 9 a includes tables illustrating a first method of assessing thecontribution of factors to the liability according to one embodiment.

FIG. 9 b includes a table illustrating a second method of assessing thecontribution of factors to the liability according to one embodiment.

FIG. 9 c includes a table illustrating a third method of assessing thecontribution of factors to the liability according to one embodiment.

FIG. 10 a is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of alcoholusage to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a firstembodiment.

FIG. 10 b is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of alcoholusage to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a secondembodiment.

FIG. 11 is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of a constructionzone to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 12 is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of correctivelenses to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 13 is a flow chart for assessing the contribution of defective,obscured, or missing traffic control to liability in a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment.

FIG. 14 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of driverinattention to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 15 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of driverinexperience to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 16 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of taking anillicit drug to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 17 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of taking amedication to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 18 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of fatigue toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

FIG. 19 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of faultyequipment to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 20 a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of followingtoo closely to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to afirst embodiment.

FIG. 20 b is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of followingtoo closely to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to asecond embodiment.

FIG. 20 c is a table for estimating the contribution of following tooclosely to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to theembodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 b.

FIG. 21 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of headlightsbeing off to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 22 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of high beamsbeing on to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 23 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of illness toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

FIG. 24 a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of an improperlane change to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment. FIG. 24 b is a flow chart corresponding to FIG. 24 aaccording to one embodiment.

FIG. 25 is a logic diagram for estimating the contribution of improperparking to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 26 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of impropersignaling to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 27 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of an obstructedview or glare to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIGS. 28 are flow charts for estimating the contribution of the roadcondition to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIGS. 29 are flow charts for estimating the contribution of the roadcharacter to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIGS. 30 are flow charts for estimating the contribution of the roadsurface to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 31 a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of speed toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to a first embodiment.

FIG. 31 b is a flow chart for estimating the maximum safe speed forgiven road and weather conditions according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 31 c is a table illustrating the contribution of speed to a motorvehicle accident according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 32 a is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of speed toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to a second embodiment.

FIG. 32 b is a flow chart for estimating the maximum safe speed forgiven road and weather conditions according to the second embodiment.

FIG. 32 c is a table illustrating the contribution of speed to a motorvehicle accident according to the second embodiment.

FIGS. 33 a, 33 b, 33 c, 33 d, 33 e, and 33 f are flow charts forestimating the contribution of a sudden stop or swerving to liability ina motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

FIG. 34 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of taillights orbrake lights being off when they should have been on to liability in amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

FIG. 35 is a flow chart for estimating the contribution of visibility toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment.

FIG. 36 is a flow chart and table for estimating the contribution ofdisobeyed signs or markings to liability in a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment.

FIG. 37 illustrates the adjustment of a liability estimate by the factorinfluence according to one embodiment.

FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a window from a Knowledge Acquisitionutility or tuning utility for selecting a roadway configuration/accidenttype combination according to one embodiment.

FIG. 39 is a screen shot of an editing combination window from aKnowledge Acquisition utility or tuning utility according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 40 is a screen shot of a window for editing the estimate effect ofa factor according to one embodiment.

FIG. 41 is a screen shot of a Knowledge Acquisition utility or tuningutility for displaying pairs of impact points according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 42 is a screen shot of a Claim Data window according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 43 is a screen shot of a Vehicle Information frame according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 44 is a screen shot of an Additional Information frame according toone embodiment.

FIG. 45 is a screen shot of a Parties Information frame according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 46 is a screen shot of a Legal Reference window according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 47 is a screen shot of a Right of Way data frame according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 48 is a screen shot of a Traffic Controls data frame according toone embodiment.

FIG. 49 is a screen shot of a Impact Points data frame according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 50 is a screen shot of a Discords Report frame according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 51 is a screen shot of a Factors Input frame according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 52 is a screen shot of a Conflict Identification frame according toone embodiment.

FIG. 53 is a screen shot of a Review frame according to one embodiment.

FIG. 54 is a screen shot of a Manual Assessment window according to oneembodiment.

FIG. 55 is a screen shot of the Consultation Report window according toone embodiment.

FIG. 56 depicts a screen shot of a graphical user interface of a systemfor estimating liability in a vehicle accident.

FIG. 57 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a claim data frame ofa graphical user interface.

FIG. 58 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a claim data frame ofa graphical user interface.

FIG. 59 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an Add Party pop-upwindow of a graphical user interface.

FIG. 60 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a claim data frame ofa graphical user interface.

FIG. 61 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an AccidentInformation frame of a graphical user interface.

FIG. 62 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an impact points dataframe of a graphical user interface.

FIGS. 63 a-e depict embodiments of an Investigation window of agraphical user interface.

FIG. 63 f depicts an embodiment of a flow chart of questions generatedin a graphical user interface.

FIG. 64 depicts an embodiment of a Resolution window of a graphical userinterface.

FIG. 65 a depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a report frame of agraphical user interface.

FIG. 65 b depicts an embodiment of an accident report of a graphicaluser interface.

FIG. 65 c depicts an embodiment of an accident report of a graphicaluser interface.

FIG. 66 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of report frame of agraphical user interface.

FIG. 67 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a Legal referencewindow of a graphical user interface.

FIG. 68 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of Speed/Time/DistanceCalculator window of a graphical user interface.

FIG. 69 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a Distance Calculatorwindow of a graphical user interface.

FIG. 70 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of an Accident Scenewindow of a graphical user interface.

FIG. 71 depicts a screen shot of an embodiment of a Comments Facilitywindow of a graphical user interface.

FIG. 72 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of estimatingliability using the speed, time, and distance of vehicles in anaccident.

FIG. 73 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of an intersection box.

FIG. 74 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of trajectories ofvehicles.

FIGS. 75 a-g depict illustrations of the application of speed, time, anddistance analysis of vehicles for several accident types.

FIG. 76 a depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method forestimating the theoretical paths of vehicles.

FIG. 76 b depicts an illustration of vehicle orientation.

FIG. 77 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment for estimating the startpoint and intended end position of vehicles in an accident.

FIG. 78 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimatingthe start point and intended end position of vehicles in an accident.

FIGS. 79 a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

FIG. 80 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimatingthe start point and intended end position of vehicles in an accident.

FIGS. 81 a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

FIG. 82 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimatingthe start point and intended end position of vehicles in an accident.

FIGS. 83 a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

FIG. 84 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of estimatinga mathematical relationship for a trajectory.

FIG. 85 depicts an ellipse with axes “a” and “b” centered at (c, d).

FIGS. 86 a-c depict portions of ellipses that represent trajectories forvarious accident types.

FIGS. 87 a-b depict the trajectories of vehicle points.

FIG. 88 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of estimatingthe time and distance traveled by a vehicle point.

FIG. 89 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of locating areacting vehicle.

FIG. 90 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of estimatinga portion of a trajectory of a reacting vehicle.

FIG. 91 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimatingthe time for a vehicle to clear a collision area.

FIGS. 92 a-b depict illustrations of an accident.

FIG. 93 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimatingthe time for a vehicle to clear a collision area.

FIG. 94 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimatinga time for a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.

FIG. 95 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingthe opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.

FIG. 96 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of using acomputer system for assessing liability in an accident.

FIG. 97 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingthe opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident.

FIG. 98 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingwhether a straight vehicle may avoid an accident.

FIG. 99 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingwhether a turning vehicle may avoid an accident.

FIG. 100 depicts images of an accident scene on a graphical userinterface.

FIG. 101 is an illustration of a system and method for copying claimdata.

FIG. 102 is an illustration of a system and method for copying claimdata.

FIG. 103 depicts a flow chart illustrating accessing of claiminformation.

FIG. 104 depicts a schematic illustration of a system for creating apre-configured claim report.

FIG. 105 is a schematic illustration of a claim report.

FIG. 106 is a schematic illustration of a claim report.

FIG. 107 depicts a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a method ofestimating liability.

FIG. 108 illustrates a system for obtaining vehicle data.

FIG. 109 illustrates vehicle data from a CDR.

FIG. 110 depicts graphical output of a CDR.

FIG. 111 depicts graphical output from a CDR.

FIG. 112 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of assessing a claim.

While the invention is susceptible to various modifications andalternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way ofexample in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. Itshould be understood, however, that the drawings and detaileddescription thereto are not intended to limit the invention to theparticular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is tocover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within thespirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appendedclaims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SEVERAL EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 1 illustrates a wide area network (“WAN”) according to oneembodiment. WAN 102 may be a network that spans a relatively largegeographical area. The Internet is an example of WAN 102. WAN 102typically includes a plurality of computer systems that may beinterconnected through one or more networks. Although one particularconfiguration is shown in FIG. 1, WAN 102 may include a variety ofheterogeneous computer systems and networks that may be interconnectedin a variety of ways and that may run a variety of softwareapplications.

One or more local area networks (“LANs”) 104 may be coupled to WAN 102.LAN 104 may be a network that spans a relatively small area. Typically,LAN 104 may be confined to a single building or group of buildings. Eachnode (i.e., individual computer system or device) on LAN 104 may haveits own CPU with which it may execute programs, and each node may alsobe able to access data and devices anywhere on LAN 104. LAN 104, thus,may allow many users to share devices (e.g., printers) and data storedon file servers. LAN 104 may be characterized by a variety of types oftopology (i.e., the geometric arrangement of devices on the network), ofprotocols (i.e., the rules and encoding specifications for sending data,and whether the network uses a peer-to-peer or client/serverarchitecture), and of media (e.g., twisted-pair wire, coaxial cables,fiber optic cables, and/or radio waves).

Each LAN 104 may include a plurality of interconnected computer systemsand optionally one or more other devices such as one or moreworkstations 110 a, one or more personal computers 112 a, one or morelaptop or notebook computer systems 114, one or more server computersystems 116, and one or more network printers 118. As illustrated inFIG. 1, an example LAN 104 may include one of each computer systems 110a, 112 a, 114, and 116, and one printer 118. LAN 104 may be coupled toother computer systems and/or other devices and/or other LANs 104through WAN 102.

One or more mainframe computer systems 120 may be coupled to WAN 102. Asshown, mainframe 120 may be coupled to a storage device or file server124 and mainframe terminals 122 a, 122 b, and 122 c. Mainframe terminals122 a, 122 b, and 122 c may access data stored in the storage device orfile server 124 coupled to or included in mainframe computer system 120.

WAN 102 may also include computer systems connected to WAN 102individually and not through LAN 104 for purposes of example,workstation 110 b and personal computer 112 b. For example, WAN 102 mayinclude computer systems that may be geographically remote and connectedto each other through the Internet.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of computer system 150 that may besuitable for implementing various embodiments of a system and method forassessment of liability in a motor vehicle accident by consideringcharacteristics that describe such an accident combined with expertknowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters. Each computersystem 150 typically includes components such as CPU 152 with anassociated memory medium such as floppy disks 160. The memory medium maystore program instructions for computer programs. The programinstructions may be executable by CPU 152. Computer system 150 mayfurther include a display device such as monitor 154, an alphanumericinput device such as keyboard 156, and a directional input device suchas mouse 158. Computer system 150 may be operable to execute thecomputer programs to implement assessment of liability in a motorvehicle accident by considering characteristics that describe such anaccident combined with expert knowledge collected from experiencedclaims adjusters.

Computer system 150 may include a memory medium on which computerprograms according to various embodiments may be stored. The term“memory medium” is intended to include an installation medium, e.g., aCD-ROM or floppy disks 160, a computer system memory such as DRAM, SRAM,EDO RAM, Rambus RAM, etc., or a non-volatile memory such as a magneticmedia, e.g., a hard drive or optical storage. The memory medium may alsoinclude other types of memory or combinations thereof. In addition, thememory medium may be located in a first computer which executes theprograms or may be located in a second different computer which connectsto the first computer over a network. In the latter instance, the secondcomputer may provide the program instructions to the first computer forexecution. Also, computer system 150 may take various forms such as apersonal computer system, mainframe computer system, workstation,network appliance, Internet appliance, personal digital assistant(“PDA”), television system or other device. In general, the term“computer system” may refer to any device having a processor thatexecutes instructions from a memory medium.

The memory medium may store a software program or programs operable toimplement a method for assessment of liability in a motor vehicleaccident by considering characteristics that describe such an accidentcombined with expert knowledge collected from experienced claimsadjusters. The software program(s) may be implemented in various ways,including, but not limited to, procedure-based techniques,component-based techniques, and/or object-oriented techniques, amongothers. For example, the software programs may be implemented usingActiveX controls, C++ objects, JavaBeans, Microsoft Foundation Classes(“MFC”), browser-based applications (e.g., Java applets), traditionalprograms, or other technologies or methodologies, as desired. A CPU suchas host CPU 152 executing code and data from the memory medium mayinclude a means for creating and executing the software program orprograms according to the embodiments described herein.

Various embodiments may also include receiving or storing instructionsand/or data implemented in accordance with the foregoing descriptionupon a carrier medium. Suitable carrier media may include storage mediaor memory media such as magnetic or optical media, e.g., disk or CD-ROM,as well as signals such as electrical, electromagnetic, or digitalsignals, may be conveyed via a communication medium such as networks 102and/or 104 and/or a wireless link.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart of an embodiment of a liability estimationprocess for vehicle accidents according to one embodiment. As usedherein, the term “liability” generally refers to an amount for which aperson or party is responsible or obligated. In an embodiment, liabilityin an accident may be expressed in a ratio or percentage (e.g., there isa total of 100% liability that can be attributed to persons, parties, orother factors such as weather, etc.). In another embodiment, liabilitymay be expressed as a dollar amount.

An embodiment may apply to accidents involving many different types ofvehicles (e.g., automobiles, light trucks, heavy trucks, motor cycles,school buses, vans, commercial trucks, tractor-trailers, motor homes,recreational vehicles, commercial buses, farming related vehicles,tractors). It is anticipated that an embodiment may apply to accidentsinvolving other types of transportation craft such as boats andairplanes. It is also anticipated that an embodiment may apply to othertypes of accidents such as premises liability, which may include slip,trip and fall, dog bite, food poisoning, etc.

When two or more vehicles are involved in a motor vehicle accident,typically an estimation of liability is needed in order to settle aclaim that a claimant may make against an insured. As used herein, theterm “claimant” generally refers to a party involved in an accident thatseeks compensation for bodily injury and/or property damage from theclaims organization of an insurance carrier of another party, theinsured, involved in the accident. As used herein, the term “insured”generally refers to a party involved in an accident who holds aninsurance policy with a claims organization of an insurance carrier thatobligates the claims organization of an insurance carrier to compensatea third party for the portion of the damages suffered by the third partythat was the fault of the insured party in the accident.

The estimation of liability may be a complicated process involvingmultiple characteristics. Gathering the characteristics may typically bea task completed by a claims adjuster. As used herein, the term “claimsadjuster” generally refers to an individual employed by a claimsorganization of an insurance carrier who assesses the liability of eachparty involved in an accident. When the claims adjuster has collectedsome or all of the information available, the claims adjuster may enterthe information into a computer system. Examples of data input screensthat may be suitable for entering accident information into a computerare shown in FIGS. 42-55.

The claims adjuster may provide to a computer system a real set ofcharacteristics relating to a real accident. As used herein the term“real characteristics” generally refers to characteristics that describean accident being considered for liability assessment. The computersystem may have access to a memory that contains sets of characteristicsthat correspond to past or theoretical accidents. As used herein, theterm “past accident” generally refers to an accident that occurred inthe past of which certain characteristics may be stored in a memory of acomputer system. As used herein, the term “theoretical accident”generally refers to an accident that might occur. The computer systemmay be configured to provide an estimate of liability for each set ofcharacteristics in the memory.

The computer system may correlate the real set of characteristics fromthe real accident to the sets of characteristics in the memory todetermine a set of characteristics that most closely approximates ormatches the real set of characteristics. The computer system may thenuse the estimates of liability for the sets of characteristics in thememory to estimate liability for the real accident. It is anticipatedthat one or more of the sets of characteristics may be used to estimateliability.

FIG. 3 provides an overview of an embodiment of a liability estimationprocess based on multiple characteristics that may describe a vehicleaccident. In step 301, a claims adjuster may identify a set of realcharacteristics relating to a real accident. A set of realcharacteristics may include, but are not limited to, roadwayconfiguration, accident type, and impact points of each motor vehicle.Additionally, the real set of characteristics may include identificationof traffic controls at the scene of the accident. Screen shotsillustrating examples of providing each of these characteristics to acomputer system may be found as follows: roadway configurations in FIG.47, accident types in FIG. 47, traffic controls in FIG. 48, and impactpoints in FIG. 49.

In step 302, the right of way (“ROW”) may be established by a computersystem from one or more of the real characteristics. Additionally, thecomputer system may ask one or more questions about the real accident toestablish the ROW. At least one of the real characteristics may includea roadway configuration, an accident type, or a traffic control. FIGS. 7a and 7 b show flow charts that illustrate an embodiment of right of waydetermination. Alternatively, the claims adjuster may specify the ROW.

In step 303, a base liability may be estimated from a table or databaseof characteristics that contain sets of characteristics that correspondto past or theoretical accidents. As used herein, the term “baseliability” generally refers to the portion of the liability that isindependent of factors specific to condition of vehicles in theaccident, condition of drivers in the accident, actions of drivers inthe accident, and environmental conditions common to vehicles in theaccident. A computer system may have access to a memory that containssets of characteristics such as roadway configuration, accident type,traffic control, right of way, and impact points of the vehiclesinvolved in the vehicle accidents that correspond to past or theoreticalaccidents. Each of the sets of characteristics for past or theoreticalaccidents may be associated with an estimate of base liability. FIGS. 37to 41 are screen shots of a knowledge acquisition utility and a tuningutility that may be utilized to input base liability information into acomputer system. The utilities may be used to create a database of setsof characteristics that correspond to past or theoretical accidents.

The computer system may compare the real set of characteristicsestablished or identified in the earlier steps (e.g., roadwayconfiguration, accident type, traffic control, right of way, impactpoints) to the sets of characteristics relating to past or theoreticalaccidents to determine a nearest matching set of characteristics amongthe sets of characteristics relating to past or theoretical accidents.The computer may then determine an estimate of liability for the realaccident based on the estimate of liability associated with the nearestmatching set of characteristics among the sets of characteristicsrelating to past or theoretical accidents. It is anticipated that acomputer system may be configured to provide an estimate of liabilityusing at least one of the sets of characteristics that correspond topast or theoretical accidents.

In step 304, the claims adjuster may identify to the computer system oneor more factors corresponding to a real accident. The factors mayinclude characteristics specific to condition of vehicles in theaccident, condition of drivers in the accident, actions of drivers inthe accident, or environmental conditions common to vehicles in theaccident. The computer system may have access to a memory that containscorresponding factors associated with one or more past or theoreticalaccidents. One or more of the factors associated with past ortheoretical accidents may be associated with an estimate of the effecton liability of the factor. The computer system may compare the factorsassociated with the real accident to factors associated with past ortheoretical accidents to determine one or more nearest matching factors.Estimates of the effect on liability of the determined nearest matchingfactors may be used to estimate the effect on liability of the factorsassociated with the real accident. FIG. 51 is a screen shot showing agraphical user interface for entering conditional factors into acomputer system.

In some embodiments, the estimate of the effect on liability of eachfactor may be adjustable. For example, the adjustments may be due tosets of characteristics corresponding to the real accident, thepreference of a claims organization, knowledge of an experienced claimsadjuster, or requirements of a jurisdiction in which the accident tookplace. FIGS. 10 a through 36 illustrate several embodiments of estimatesof the effect on liability of several factors which may be associatedwith theoretical accidents. It is anticipated that there are othermethods than those shown in and described in reference to FIGS. 10 a to36 to estimate effects on liability due to the contribution of variousfactors.

In step 305, any necessary adjustments to the base liability estimatedin step 303 due to contributions from factors estimated in 304 may bemade. One example of a necessary adjustment may be an Absolute LiabilityValue. As used herein, the term “Absolute Liability Value” (“ALV”) isgenerally defined as a factor that makes a significant contribution toliability such as negating the effect of other factors orcharacteristics associated with the accident. An ALV may also be definedas a factor that may adjust the liability beyond the lower and upperbounds defined for the liability. However, an ALV may not always shiftliability to the other party. For example, an ALV might simply absolveone party of liability and explain the accident as being unavoidable. Insuch a situation, the contribution of various factors andcharacteristics may be ignored and an ALV may be assigned. For example,if a person had a sudden, unforeseen heart attack that caused anaccident, the base liability might be determined to be 75 percent, butthe final liability may be set via an ALV at 0 percent because theaccident was probably unavoidable.

In step 306, all of the previously entered information may be taken intoaccount and processed. Reference to expert knowledge databases, andother static information (such as jurisdictional information) may bemade in calculating a range of liability. A range of liability may bemore suitable than a single value in negotiations between partiesregarding fault.

FIG. 4 illustrates graphical representations of various differentaccident types involving motor vehicles according to one embodiment. Thearrows represent the paths of motor vehicle A and motor vehicle B at ornear the time of the accident. Solid lines with no arrows represent theedge of a roadway. Dashed lines represent lanes. The user may select anaccident type that corresponds to the real vehicle accident as shown inthe screen shot in FIG. 47. As used herein, the term “user” generallyrefers to a claims adjuster or another individual employed by a claimsorganization. Accident types graphically represented in FIG. 4 mayinclude: (1) a rear ender, (2) a left turn crossing traffic, (3) a leftturn across traffic, (4) a left turn entering traffic, (5) a right turnentering traffic, (6) dual turns to same lane, (7) concurrent leftturns, (8) a U-turn, (9) a parked vehicle merging into traffic fromright, (10) a parked vehicle merging into traffic from left (e.g. on aone way street), (11) a merge from the left, (12) a merge from theright, (13) concurrent merges to a single lane, (14) a collision with aparked vehicle, (15) a collision while backing, (16) a head on, and (17)a straight cross traffic collision. Additionally, in some embodiments, aright turn across traffic accident type (not shown) may be represented.

FIG. 5 illustrates graphical representations of various differentroadway configurations according to one embodiment. The user may selectone of the roadway configurations that correspond to a real vehicleaccident as shown in the screen shot in FIG. 47. Roadway configurationsgraphically represented in FIG. 5 may include: (A) a two or more laneroad (including a divided road with a median that may be crossed), wherethe solid lines are the roadway and the space between is the median; (B)a four-way intersection with the lines representing the crossingroadways; (C) a T-angle intersection (the T-angle that may vary), wherethe solid lines are the roadway and where the dashed line represents thevariation of the angle of the intersection; (D) a merging of one roadwayinto another with no turns and in one direction with the arrows showingthe direction of the vehicles; (E) a curve with the lines showing theroadway; (F) a parking lot with two-way traffic where the arrows showthe direction of the vehicles, the vertical lines represent the boundaryof the parking lot, and the spaces between the horizontal linesrepresent the parking spaces; (G) a parking lot with one way trafficwhere the arrow shows the direction of the vehicles, the vertical linesrepresent the boundary of the parking lot, and the spaces between thediagonal lines represent the parking spaces; (H) a center turn lane withthe bold lines representing the boundary of the roadway, the thin linesmarking the boundary between the driving lanes and the center turn lane,and the arrows representing the direction of the center lane turns; (I)a two or more lane road divided by a physical barrier with the thickercenter line representing the physical barrier and the thinner linesrepresenting the outer boundaries of the roadway.

Alternatively, the roadway configurations of the parking lots, (F) and(G), may be represented by a single diagram, (FG), shown in FIG. 5. (FG)is the same as (F), except that the parking spaces on the right of thediagram are formed by diagonal lines. In an embodiment, (FG) may be usedto represent a parking lot of any configuration.

FIG. 6 is a matrix illustrating the applicable roadwayconfiguration/accident type combinations in liability estimationaccording to one embodiment. Accident types, (1) to (17) from FIG. 4,are listed on the vertical axis. Roadway configurations, (A) to (I) fromFIG. 5, are listed on the horizontal axis. The alternativerepresentation of the parking lots (F) and (G), (FG) is also included onthe horizontal axis.

Experienced claims adjusters may consider combinations labeled “N” to beimplausible accident scenarios and, therefore, not significant inliability assessment of motor vehicle accidents. Thus, combinationslabeled “Y” may be considered a set of theoretical accident scenarios.FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a Knowledge Acquisition Utility, which showsa matrix of roadway configuration/accident types similar to FIG. 6. InFIG. 38, the elements of the matrix labeled with a “--” indicateimplausible combinations. In the embodiment of FIG. 38, the implausiblecombinations are a subset of the combinations labeled with an “N” inFIG. 6 because the knowledge acquisition utility allows the user toconsider some implausible combinations. An example of a combinationmarked as implausible in both FIG. 6 and 38 is D2, left turn crossingtraffic on a merge with no turns in one direction. An example of acombination that may be considered implausible in FIG. 6, but may beallowed for consideration in FIG. 38 is I16, a head on collision on a 2or more lane road divided by a physical barrier.

FIG. 7 a and 7 b depict flow charts for determining whether vehicle A orvehicle B has the right of way in traffic according to one embodiment.As used herein, the term “right of way” generally refers to the right ofa vehicle to take precedence in traffic. The determination of right ofway may require identification of one or more of the characteristics ofthe real accident (e.g., the roadway configuration, accident type,traffic control, or jurisdiction). Additionally, determining the rightof way may require answering one or more questions concerning theaccident. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the right of way may bespecified by the user. FIG. 7 b includes flow charts of determinationsthat appear in the flow chart in FIG. 7 a. In FIG. 7 b, the Intersectionflow chart identifies the accident types that involve intersections. ThePerpendicular Directions flow chart identifies the accident types thatinvolve vehicles approaching from perpendicular directions. In AdjusterPreference, the claims adjuster may either assign the right of way tovehicle A or B, or defer to the insurance carrier's or claimsorganization's preference.

As shown by decision point 501 in FIG. 7 a, the determination of theright of way may depend on the accident types illustrated in FIG. 4. Theright of way may be determined from the accident type alone in somecases. For example, in accident types 9 and 10, merge of a parkedvehicle, the vehicle already in traffic may have the right of way.Likewise, in accident types 11 and 12, the merge of a moving vehicle,the vehicle already in the lane may have the right of way. Thesedeterminations are shown by step 503 in which vehicle A in accident typediagrams 9, 10, 11 and 12 in FIG. 4 has the right of way. Additionally,as depicted in step 505, vehicle A may be determined to have the rightof way if vehicle A is parked (accident type 14) or vehicle B is backingup (accident type 15).

For accident type 1, decision point 507 shows that the right of way maydepend on which vehicle was ahead in the rear-ender. If vehicle B wasahead (as depicted in FIG. 4), step 511 shows that B may have the rightof way. If vehicle A was ahead, step 509 shows that A may have the rightof way. Alternatively, if it is unknown which vehicle was ahead (e.g.,due to the circumstances or severity of the accident), step 513indicates that the right of way may be undetermined. For an undeterminedright of way the base liability of each vehicle may be set at 50%.

As shown in FIG. 7 a, for accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16,and 17, the first step 515 is the intersection decision point, which isdetermination of whether the accident occurred at an intersection. Theintersection flow chart is illustrated in FIG. 7 b. Decision point 582indicates that the presence of an intersection may be found from theaccident type. If the accident type is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 17, step583 indicates that there may be an intersection. If the accident type is1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16, step 584 indicates an intersectionmay not be present. Alternately, in some embodiments, the presence of anintersection may be determined from roadway configuration informationprovided by the user. For example, roadway configurations A, E, F, G, Iand FG may indicate that in intersection may not be present. Roadwayconfigurations B, C, D, and H may indicate that an intersection may bepresent.

FIG. 7 a shows that if there is no intersection, the next step isdecision point 519. Decision point 519 is the determination of whichvehicle left the lane it was in. As shown by steps 521 and 523, thevehicle that remained in the lane it was in may have the right of way.Alternatively, if both vehicles left their lanes, step 525 indicatesthat the right of way may be undetermined. In this case, the baseliability may be assessed at 50% for each vehicle.

FIG. 7 a shows that when there is an intersection, the next step isdecision point 517 which is a determination of whether there is atraffic control for either vehicle A or B. If not, decision point 529indicates that the right of way may depend on which vehicle left thelane it was in. Steps 531, 533, and 535 are analogous to steps 521, 523,and 525. However, if neither vehicle left the lane it was in, step 525indicates that the vehicle that controls the intersection may have theright of way as shown by flow chart 537. The vehicle that controls theintersection may be determined by flow chart 537 shown in FIG. 7 b.Decision point 589 in FIG. 7 b is the first step in determining whocontrols the intersection. Decision point 589 asks which vehicle arrivedat the intersection first. As shown by steps 590 and 591, the vehiclethat arrived first at an intersection may control it. If neither vehiclearrived first, decision point 592 asks which vehicle is to the right.Steps 593 and 594 show that the vehicle to the right may control theintersection.

As illustrated in FIG. 7 a, if the answer to decision point 517 is yes,then decision point 527 is next which asks the type of traffic control.Decision point 539, which is reached if the traffic control is a sign,asks if the sign is obscured or down. If the sign is obscured or down,step 543 shows that right of way may be determined by the adjuster.Adjuster determination is shown by the flow chart in FIG. 7 b. Decisionpoint 585 in FIG. 7 b is the adjuster's answer for which vehicle, A orB, has the right of way, which is shown as steps 586 and 587. If theadjuster does not have an answer, then the right of way may be thecarrier's preference as shown by step 588.

However, if the answer to decision point 539 is no, decision point 545asks which vehicle had a non-yielding traffic control. Step 547 showsthat if A had the non-yielding traffic control, then B may have theright of way. Step 549 shows that if B had the non-yielding trafficcontrol, then A may have the right of way. Step 551 applies if neither Anor B has the non-yielding traffic control. The right of way may bedetermined by the vehicle that controls the intersection, which may bedetermined by the flow chart shown in FIG. 7 b.

Alternatively, if the answer to decision point 527 is a traffic light,then decision point 541 asks if the light was out for both vehicles. Ifthe light was out for both, then right of way may be determined by whocontrols the intersection, which is shown in FIG. 7 b. If the answer todecision point 541 is no, decision point 555 asks if the light was outfor only one vehicle. If the light was out for only one vehicle, thenright of way may be found from adjuster determination, which is given bythe flow chart in FIG. 7 b. However, if the answer to decision point 555is no, decision point 559 is reached. Decision point 559 asks whichvehicle has a non-yielding traffic control. As step 561 shows, if A hasthe non-yielding traffic control and B does not, then B may have theright of way. As step 563 shows, if B has the non-yielding trafficcontrol and A does not, then A may have the right of way. If neither Anor B has the non-yielding traffic control, then decision point 565 isreached, which inquires whether both had a red light. If the answer todecision point 565 is yes, the right of way may be undetermined, asshown in step 567. In this case, the base liability may be assessed at50% for each vehicle. If the answer to decision point 565 is no, thenright of way may be determined by the vehicle that controls theintersection. The vehicle that controls the intersection may bedetermined by the flow chart shown in FIG. 7 b. If both vehicles indecision point 559 have non-yielding traffic controls, then decisionpoint 571 is reached. Decision point 571 asks whether the vehicles wereapproaching in perpendicular directions, which may be determined fromthe flow chart in FIG. 7 b. As shown by decision point 595 in FIG. 7 b,whether the vehicles were approaching in perpendicular directions may bedetermined from the accident types shown in FIG. 4. Step 596 shows thatthe answer is yes if the accident type is 3, 4, 5, or 17. Step 597 showsthat the answer is no if the accident type is 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, or 16. If the vehicles were approaching in perpendiculardirections, then right of way may be determined by the adjuster.Adjuster determination may be given by the flow chart in FIG. 7 b. Ifthe vehicles were not approaching in a perpendicular direction, thendecision point 529 shows that the right of way again may depend on whichvehicle left the lane it was in. Steps 577, 579, and 581 are analogousto steps 521, 523, and 525.

An example of a screen shot of user input of a traffic control is shownin FIG. 48. An example of a screen shot of user input of thejurisdiction is shown in FIG. 42. Jurisdiction may include each of thefifty states of the United States and territories of the United States.In another embodiment, jurisdiction may include any governmental entitywith traffic laws, such as a foreign country. The vehicle that does nothave the right of way may generally be referred to as the “tortfeasor”(“TF”) and the vehicle that has the right of way may generally bereferred to as the “other party” (“OP”). For the case of an undeterminedright of way, both parties may be considered the “other party” whendetermining the effect of one or more factors on the liability.

In an embodiment, a traffic control may be considered as “yielding” or“nonyielding.” As used herein, the term “yielding traffic control”generally refers to a traffic control that informs a driver that he orshe must give way (or stop) for other traffic. As used herein, the term“nonyielding traffic control” generally refers to a traffic control thatinforms the driver that he or she may proceed. Traffic controls may befurther divided into three categories: pure, other explicit controllingdevices, and markings and signs. Yielding pure traffic controls mayinclude, but are not limited to, no traffic control present, a redlight, a stop sign, a yield sign, a flashing red light, or a policeofficer signaling stop. Nonyielding pure traffic controls may include,but are not limited to, a yellow light, a green light, a green arrowleft, a green arrow right, a flashing yellow light, or a police officersignaling proceed.

Yielding other explicit controlling devices may include a crossing guardsignaling stop, a flagger signaling stop, another person signaling stop,and a school bus loading or unloading. Nonyielding other explicitcontrolling devices may include a crossing guard signaling proceed, aflagger signaling proceed, or another person signaling proceed. In someembodiments, emergency vehicle may also be yielding traffic controlsdepending upon the jurisdiction.

Whether a traffic control in the pure category overrides a selection inthe other explicit controlling devices category may depend upon thejurisdiction. For example, whether a vehicle with a green light mustyield to an approaching emergency vehicle may vary depending on thejurisdiction.

In one embodiment, a user may only select one traffic control from eachcategory. The user may not have to select a traffic control from morethan one category. If a user does select more than one, then the usermay select which category should be considered as the governing control.A secondary traffic control may be listed in a report as informationalonly.

Markings and signs such as lane markings may also be traffic controls.In some embodiments, the presence of markings or signs may be noted forinformational purposes. For example the presence of a disobeyed markingmay be noted for use as a negotiation or talking point rather than beingused to estimate liability or right of way. The markings and signs mayinclude, but are not limited to: a one way sign or marking, a do notenter sign or marking, a no passing sign or marking, a no parking zonesign or marking, a straight only sign or marking, a left turn only signor marking, a right turn only sign or marking, no U turn sign ormarking, a no right turn on red sign, cones and/or barricades, a solidyellow line, a solid white line, or a no stopping sign or marking.

FIG. 8 a is an illustration of a graphical representation of the impactpoints on a vehicle according to one embodiment. FIG. 8 a is a graphicalrepresentation of a vehicle that is divided into twelve sections:801-right front corner, 802-right front fender, 803-right middle,804-right rear quarter-panel, 805-right rear corner, 806-rear middle,807-left rear corner, 808-left rear quarter-panel, 809-left middle,810-left front fender, 811-left front corner, and 812-front middle. Eachof the labeled sections may correspond to a possible point of impact ina motor vehicle accident.

FIG. 8 b is a table showing impact groups for combinations of roadwayconfiguration and accident type according to one embodiment. A givenroadway configuration/accident type combination may have a number ofpossible impact groups. As used herein, the term “impact group”generally refers to a collection of pairs of impact points for a past ortheoretical accidents. A pair of impact points may include the impactpoint for each of two vehicles involved in an accident. In someembodiments, each pair of impact points may be associated with sets ofliability estimate values. One set of values may correspond to vehicle Ahaving the right of way and the other set of values to vehicle B havingthe right of way. Each set of values may include a value of baseliability, a lower bound of liability, and an upper bound of liabilityfor each vehicle. Alternately, in some embodiments, each impact groupmay be associated with sets of values corresponding to base liabilityvalues. It is anticipated that there may be various ways to arrangeimpact points in impact groups.

For example, as shown in FIG. 8 b, impact points associated with theroadway configuration/accident type combination 2B (a four-wayintersection with vehicle A from top turning left and B from bottomgoing straight), may be grouped into four impact groups. A first impactgroup may include three pairs of impact points: A811B809, A811B810, andA810B808. A and B refer to motor vehicle A and motor vehicle B,respectively, and the numbers refer to points on the impact pointdiagram in FIG. 8 a. For example, the impact point pair, A811B809,corresponds to vehicle A with an impact point on the left front fender(811) and vehicle B with an impact point on the left middle (809).

In an embodiment, each of the pairs of impact points in a given impactgroup may have the same base liability and lower and upper bound ofliability. The estimation of the base liability values, lower and upperbounds of liabilities, and the impact groups may be estimated by expertclaims adjusters through a process called knowledge acquisition.

In an embodiment, the base liability and the bounds of the liability fortwo vehicles involved in an accident may be estimated for a realaccident by first specifying the roadway configuration (as shown in FIG.5), accident type (as shown in FIG. 4), and pair of impact points (asshown in FIG. 8 a) of vehicles A and B for the real accident. Thevehicle that had the right of way may be determined as shown in FIGS. 7a and 7 b. A table, like the one shown in FIG. 8 b, may be searched forthe impact group corresponding to the given roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination that contains the specified pairof impact points that correspond to a past or theoretical accident. Oncethe roadway configuration/accident type combination and impact group ofthe past or theoretical accident are known, the base liability andbounds may be extracted from a table in a database that lists the baseliabilities and bounds for each impact group for all applicable roadwayconfiguration/accident type combinations.

FIG. 9 a illustrates an embodiment of a method of estimating the effectof one or more factors on the liability. Factor adjustments may beconsidered for each vehicle based on data specific to condition ofvehicles in the accident, condition of drivers in the accident, actionsof drivers in the accident, or environmental conditions common tovehicles in the accident. Each factor may have an associated penaltyvalue that may correspond to an amount that an experienced claimsadjuster may add to the base liability when this factor is presentalone. A user may identify the presence of factors in a real accidentand provide a list of factors to the computer system.

In an embodiment, factors related to the condition of vehicles in theaccident may include the presence of faulty equipment. As used herein,the term “faulty equipment” generally refers to any vehicle equipmentmalfunction that causes an action (e.g., stuck accelerator causesunwanted acceleration), prohibits the operator from taking action (e.g.,failed braking system prevents stopping), or fails to perform an action(e.g., failed brake lights do not warn other drivers of braking). In anembodiment, factors related to environmental conditions common to thevehicle may include, but are not limited to, presence of a constructionzone, an obstructed view or glare, a road condition, a road character, aroad surface, a defective traffic control, weather or visibility. In anembodiment, the factors related to a driver's condition may include, butare not limited to, consumption of alcohol, consumption of illicitdrugs, consumption of medications, driver inattention, lack of requiredcorrective lenses, driver inexperience, driver fatigue, or driverillness. In an embodiment, factors related to a driver's actions mayinclude, but are not limited to, following too closely, driving withheadlights off, driving at an unsafe speed, a sudden stop or swerve,driving with taillights brake lights off, unsafe backing, failure totake evasive action, driving with high beams on, an improper lanechange, improper parking, or improper signaling.

FIG. 9 a is an illustration of one embodiment for estimating the effecton liability of one or more factors. The decision to apply a particularfactor in a given situation may be made by an experienced claimsadjuster. In alternate embodiments, the factor may be applied by acomputer system based on input provided by a claims adjuster. Thecomputer system may ask the claims adjuster one or more questionsregarding the accident. Based on answers provided by the claimsadjuster, the computer system may determine that one or more factorsapply.

In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 9 a, the effect of a factor on theliability may be adjusted by a situational weight for each roadwayconfiguration/accident type and vehicle. A situational weight may havefour levels: N/A (factor not applicable), low, normal, and high. Anexperienced claims adjuster may determine an appropriate situationalweight to apply. In an alternate embodiment, a computer system may beconfigured to determine an appropriate situational weight based oninformation provided by a claims adjuster. For example, in a rear-ender,a factor related to the consumption of alcohol (e.g., being drunk) maybe considered more important than it is in other types of accidents.Therefore, the situational weight may be “high” for the rear vehicle.However, whether the driver of the lead vehicle has consumed alcohol maybe irrelevant. Thus, a situational weight of “N/A” may be assigned tothe factor. Each level of the situational weight may be assigned apercentage. For example, the situational weight may be 50 percent forlow and 150 percent for high.

In the example depicted in FIG. 9 a, base liability values may havealready been determined from a table of base liabilities of past ortheoretical accidents, as was described in reference to FIG. 8 b. Forexample, the insurance carrier may have determined that the baseliability for the insured was 80%, with a lower bound of 50% and anupper bound of 100%. Consequently, base liability for the claimant maybe 20%.

In an embodiment, the levels of the situational weights (e.g., N/A, low,normal, and high) may be represented as percent weights (e.g., 0%, 50%,100%, and 150%, respectively). In some embodiments, for a given factor,the penalty value, the situational weight, the percent weight, andwhether or not the factor may apply may be specified by the user. If thefactor applies, the adjusted penalty may be estimated by multiplying thepenalty value by the percent weight associated with the determinedsituational weight. For example, the adjusted penalty of 22.5% foralcohol for the insured may be estimated by multiplying the penalty(e.g., 15%) by the percent weight (e.g., 150%) associated with thedetermined situational weight (e.g., “high”). In an embodiment, answersto questions in the flow charts may be used to determine whether asituational weight associated with a factor is low, medium, high, or notapplicable.

In other embodiments, the penalty, and/or situational weight may not bedetermined directly by a user. In such an embodiment, the penalty and/orsituational weight may be determined from the answers to a series ofquestions. The questions may be specific to one party (e.g., thetortfeasor or other party). The questions may relate to roadwayconfiguration, accident type, and/or other characteristics of theaccident. FIGS. 10 a to 36 are flow charts that depict methods ofdetermining penalties values associated with various factors. In theFIGS. 10 a to 36, the penalty values may be represented in certain ofthe flow chart terminuses as percentage values. In certain flow charts,the penalty values may be represented by the terms “low,” “medium,” or“high.” These terms may represent variables that correspond to penaltyvalues. For example, the “low” term may correspond to a penalty value of10%, the “medium” term may correspond to a penalty value of 20%, and the“high” term may correspond to a penalty value of 30%. In someembodiments, the penalty values associated with each of these terms maybe configurable by the claims organization. In some embodiments, all ofthe penalty values determined by methods such as those depicted in FIGS.10 a through 36 may be configurable by the claims organization.

In some cases, a factor may be determined to be a talking point (“TP”).As used herein, the term “talking point” generally refers to a factorthat may not affect liability and may be informational only because theliability may be inherent in the base liability for the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination and the right of way. In certainembodiments, a computer system may gather information related to anaccident and note for the user talking points identified from theinformation. Talking points may be useful if two or more parties mustcome to a negotiated agreement regarding the assessment of liabilityfrom the accident. A factor may also be determined to be an ALV.

In some embodiments, the situational weight for a factor may not becontrolled directly by the user. In such embodiments, a factor rankingmay be provided by the user to indirectly adjust the effect of a factor.For example, the user may rank factors on a scale of 0 to 5. The rankingfactor may take into account the importance that a given factor has to aclaims organization when it is not related to the characteristics of aparticular accident. A knowledge acquisition utility may be provided viaa computer system. The knowledge acquisition utility may ask the user aseries of questions related to one or more factors, and determine aranking factor from answers provided by the user. Alternately, the usermay be presented directly with a list or factors and may be asked torank each factor on a provided scale. In such embodiments, factorsranked as having a greater importance may be provided a situationalweight. Such a method may be used in some embodiments to determinepenalty values associated with one or more factors.

One method of applying the factor ranking to situational weights may beto assign a weight in terms of a percentage value between 0 and 100%. Arank of 0 may correspond to 0% and a rank of 5 may correspond to 100%.Ranks between 0 and 5 may be assigned values in 20% increments. If avalue is assigned to the situational weight for a given factor, thesituational weight may be adjusted by the ranking factor. For example,if the system estimates that high beams have a situational weight of 10percent, and the claims organization gave a rank of 4 to high beams, theadjusted situational weight may be 8 percent.

As used herein, the term “penalty value” generally indicates that aportion of liability that would otherwise be assessed to a first partyis not assessed to the first party. In some cases, that portion of theliability may be shifted to a second party, where the second party maybe another driver involved in the accident. In other cases, theliability may be shifted to a third party, where the third party was nota driver involved in the accident. For example, the third party may bean owner of an animal that contributed to the accident.

Adjusting the base liability based on factors may be done in a number ofways. For example, a direct shift may be used. In an embodiment, aportion of the base liability assessed to the first party may be shiftedto the second party. In such a case, a penalty factor may be apercentage of the liability to shift. For example, if the first andsecond party would each be assessed with 50% of the liability for theaccident. A penalty value of 80% for the second party means that thefirst party is assessed with 10% of the liability and the second partyis assessed with 90% of the liability.

In some embodiments, a debit/credit system may be used. In suchembodiments, an effect on liability for a particular factor may bedetermined. One half of the determined penalty value may then be addedto a first party, and the other half subtracted from the second party.After all of the factors may have been considered, the penalty valuesfor each party may be summed and applied to the base liability. Forexample, FIGS. 9 b and 9 c depict examples of applying a debit/creditsystem for assessing the effect of several factors on the liability. Inthe example of FIG. 9 b, Factors 1 and 2 apply to the first party,having penalty values of 20% (i.e., 10%+10%) and 30% (i.e., 15%+15%),respectively. Additionally, Factor 3 applies to the second party, havinga penalty value of 10%. Therefore, a total of 20% may be added to thebase liability of the first party, leaving a 70% liability assessmentfor the first party. The second party may receive a 30% liabilityassessment as a result of 20% being subtracted from the base liabilityof the second party. In some embodiments, effects on liability adjustthe base liability by multiplying the sum of the effects on liabilitytimes the base liability. For example, using the same numbers as in FIG.9 c, but multiplying the sum by the base liability the first and secondparties may be assessed with 60% and 40%, respectively. In addition tothe calculation demonstrated in FIGS. 9 b and 9 c, one or moresituational weights may be used to adjust the penalty values associatedwith each factor before the penalty values are assessed to the parties.

FIGS. 10 a and 10 b depict flow charts of alternate embodiments ofmethods for estimating the effect on liability of an alcohol factor. Inan embodiment, the alcohol factor may apply to either the tortfeasor orthe other party for all accident types.

If at decision point 1001 in FIG. 10 a, it is determined that alcoholwas not consumed prior to the accident, then the alcohol factor may notbe applicable as shown by step 1002. If alcohol was consumed prior tothe accident, the next step, shown by decision point 1003, may be todetermine if the alcohol usage contributed to the accident. If not, thenthe alcohol factor may not be applicable as shown by step 1004. If it isdetermined that alcohol usage did contribute to the accident,information of basic facts may be gathered as shown by step 1005. Basicinformation may include blood alcohol content, whether or not a sobrietytest was given, and whether or not the accident involved a fatality.Optional information may also be gathered, as shown by step 1007, suchas the type and amount of alcohol consumed, where the alcohol was servedand by whom, and the weight of the user.

If the accident involved a fatality, as determined at decision point1009 shown in FIG. 10 a, “warrants further discussion” may be added tothe accident report, as shown in step 1011. However, whether or notthere was a fatality involved in the accident, the next decision point1013 may be to determine if the user was cited for impairment. If theuser was cited for impairment, a talking point may be reached, as shownby step 1015. If the user was not cited for impairment, the nextdecision point 1017 may be to determine if there was any indication ofimpairment. If there was no indication of impairment, the alcohol factormay not be applicable as shown by step 1019. If there was any indicationof impairment, the next step may be to determine what the indication wasbased on at decision point 1021. A blood alcohol content may indicate alevel of impairment. Statements or other evidence may also provide someindication of impairment, which would be described as shown by step1023. After it is determined what the indication of impairment was basedon, a talking point may be reached as shown by step 1025.

An alternate method of determining an effect on liability of alcohol isdepicted in FIG. 10 b. At step 1051, the method may include determiningif alcohol was consumed by a driver of a vehicle involved in theaccident prior to the accident. If it is determined that no alcohol wasconsumed prior to the accident, the factor may not apply, as shown bystep 1052. If alcohol was consumed by a driver of a vehicle involved inthe accident, step 1053 may determine whether the driver was cited forimpairment. In certain embodiments, prior to step 1053, the method mayalso include a step to determine if the alcohol consumption contributedto the accident. If it is determined that the driver was cited forimpairment, step 1054 may be reached and an ALV may assign 100% of theliability to the driver cited for impairment. If the driver was notcited for impairment, decision point 1055 may determine if otherindications of impairment were present. If no indications of impairmentwere present, a “high” penalty value may be assessed to the driver thathad consumed alcohol, as depicted in step 1056. If indications ofimpairment were present, the method may determine the nature of theindications of impairment at step 1057. Indications of impairment basedon blood alcohol content (step 1058), or statements or other evidence(step 1059) may result in a penalty value of 70% of the liability to theimpaired driver.

FIG. 11 is a flow chart illustrating a method for estimating the effecton liability of a factor that accounts for the presence of aconstruction zone on a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment. The construction zone factor may be applied to a tortfeasorand/or other party for any accident type.

If a motor vehicle accident occurred in a construction zone where athird party, other than the driver(s) or vehicle(s) involved in theaccident may be involved, as determined at decision point 1101 in FIG.11, then a talking point may be reached at step 1103. If the accidentdid not occur in a construction zone, then the factor may not beapplicable in estimating liability, as shown by step 1105.

FIG. 12 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for corrective lenses in a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The corrective lenses factor may be appliedto a tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.

If it is determined at decision point 1201 in FIG. 12 that a driverinvolved in a motor vehicle accident did not require corrective lenses,then the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 1203. Ifcorrective lenses were required, the next decision point 1205 may be todetermine whether they were worn at the time of the accident. If thecorrective lenses were worn at the time of the accident, the factor maynot be applicable in estimating liability, as shown by step 1207. Ifrequired corrective lenses were not worn by the driver at the time ofthe accident, a talking point may be reached as shown by step 1209.

FIG. 13 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for a defective, obscured, or missing trafficcontrol on a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. Thetraffic control may be missing or completely obscured. A defective lightmay be one that may not be lit for either party (e.g., not lit for TF ornot lit for OP). The traffic control factor may be applied to atortfeasor and/or other party for accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,16, and 17.

If at decision point 1301 shown in FIG. 13, the accident type wasdetermined to be 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15, then the trafficcontrol factor may not be applicable to estimating liability, as shownby step 1303. For accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, and 17, adecision point shown by step 1305 may be reached to determine if anobscured, defective, or missing traffic control contributed to theaccident. If an obscured, defective, or missing traffic control did notcontribute to the accident, then the factor may not applicable forestimating liability, as shown in step 1309.

If it is determined that an obscured, defective, or missing trafficcontrol contributed to the accident, then decision point 1307 may bereached to determine if a driver was familiar with the accidentlocation. If the answer is yes, then a talking point may be reached asshown by step 1311. If the answer is no, the next decision point 1313may be whether or not the intersection appeared to be an uncontrolledintersection. If not, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to theparty in question, as shown in step 1317. If the intersection appearedto be a controlled intersection, an ALV of 10% may be assessed to theparty in question.

FIG. 14 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for the contribution of driver inattention to amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. The driverinattention factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party forany accident type.

As shown by decision point 1401 in FIG. 14, if the driver failed tomaintain a proper lookout (e.g., not looking at the road ahead), then a“low” penalty value may be assessed against the driver, as shown in step1405. If the driver maintained a proper lookout, the step 1403 may bereached. Step 1403 may determine if the driver was distracted prior tothe accident (e.g., by a conversation, a cell phone, shaving, etc.). Ifthe driver was distracted, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed tothe driver at step 1406. If the driver was not distracted then, as step1404 indicates, the factor may be not applicable for the driver.

FIG. 15 is a flow chart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for the contribution of driver inexperience to amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. The driverinexperience factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other partyfor any accident type.

As shown by decision point 1501 in FIG. 15, the duration of time thedriver has been legally driving may be a determining factor. If thedriver has been driving for two years or less, then the factor may be atalking point as shown by step 1503. If the driver has been driving formore than two years, then the driver inexperience factor may not beapplicable as shown by step 1505. In some embodiments, decision point1501 may be directed to how long a driver has been legally driving aparticular class of vehicle that was involved in the accident. Forexample, if the driver was driving a motorcycle at the time of theaccident, decision point 1501 may determine how long the driver has beenlegally driving motorcycles.

FIG. 16 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of taking an illicit drug to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The illicit drug factormay be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.As used herein, the term “illicit drug” generally refers to an illegal,or unlawfully used drug. For example, an unlawfully used drug mayinclude a prescription drug taken in a fashion other than the prescribedmanner or a prescription drug taken by a person to whom it has not beenprescribed.

Decision point 1601 in FIG. 16 may determine if an illicit drug wasconsumed prior to the accident. If no illicit drug was taken before theaccident, the illicit drug factor may be not applicable, as shown instep 1603. If an illicit drug was taken prior to the accident, a “low”penalty value may be assessed to the party that took the illicit drug,as shown in step 1605.

In other embodiments, factors accounting for the consumption of illicitdrugs and the consumption of alcohol may be treated simultaneouslythrough an alcohol factor flow chart as depicted in FIGS. 10 a and 10 b.

FIG. 17 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an affirmative action of taking amedication to a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. Themedication factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party forany accident type. In an embodiment, the medication factor may notinclude failing to take required medicine since the illness factor maytake this into account. As used herein, the term “medication” generallyrefers to either a prescription drug, or an over-the-counter drug.Additionally, in some embodiments, a medication may include any legalchemical substance that may be consumed by an individual for medicalreasons (e.g., herbs, or other nontraditional medications).

At decision point 1701 in FIG. 17, it is determined whether a medicationwas taken prior to the accident. If not, as shown by step 1703, then themedication factor may not be applicable. If a medication was taken priorto the accident, then the next decision point 1705 may determine if themedication had an affect on the ability to drive. If not, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown by step 1707.

If the medication affected the ability to drive, it may then bedetermined if the party was aware of this effect, as shown by decisionpoint 1709. If the party was aware of the effect of the medication onthe ability to drive, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed for themedication factor, as shown by step 1711. If the party was not aware ofthe effect of the medication on the ability to drive, then decisionpoint 1713 may ask if the medication had appropriate warnings andlabels. If there were not proper warnings or labels on the medication,then the factor may be a talking point as shown by step 1715. In someembodiments, if there were not proper warnings or labels on themedication, step 1715 may indicate that a portion of the liability maybe attributed to a third-party (e.g., the medication vendor, ormanufacturer). If the medication was properly labeled, then a “low”penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown by step 1717.

FIG. 18 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of fatigue to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The fatigue factor may be applied to atortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.

At decision point 1801 in FIG. 18, the number of hours the party hadbeen driving may be determined. If the driver had been driving for morethen 6 hours, then the factor may be a talking point as shown by step1803. If the driver had been driving for 6 hours or less, then decisionpoint 1805 asks how long the driver had been awake, but not driving. Ifthe driver was awake but not driving for more than 12 hours, then thefactor may be a talking point as shown by step 1807. If the driver wasawake for 12 hours or less prior to driving, then the number of hoursthe driver last slept may be determined at decision point 1809. If thedriver slept less than 6 hours, the factor may be a talking point, asshown by step 1811. If the driver slept 6 hours or more, then thefatigue factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 1813.

FIG. 19 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of faulty equipment to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “faultyequipment” generally refers to any vehicle equipment malfunction thatcauses an action, prohibits the operator from taking action, or fails toperform an action. In an embodiment, the faulty equipment factor may notapply to headlights, taillights, or brake lights that do not function asother factors may be provided that account for these potential equipmentfailures. The faulty equipment factor may be applied to a tortfeasorand/or other party for any accident type.

Decision point 1901 may ask whether defective equipment contributed tothe accident, as depicted in FIG. 19. If defective equipment did notcontribute to the accident, then the faulty equipment factor may not beapplicable, as shown in step 1903. If defective equipment contributed tothe accident, the next step may be decision point 1905, which maydetermine the party that faulty equipment affected. If the faultyequipment affected the other party, as shown in step 1907, then atalking point may be reached. If the faulty equipment affected thetortfeasor, the next step may be decision point 1909, which maydetermine the age of the vehicle.

If the vehicle was one year old or greater, then the vehicle may not beconsidered new. If the vehicle was less than one year old, then the nextdecision point 1911 may ask the mileage on the vehicle. If the vehiclemileage was less than 10,000 miles at the time of the accident, thevehicle may be considered new. If the vehicle mileage was 10,000 milesor greater at the time of the accident, the vehicle may not beconsidered new.

In some embodiments, if the vehicle was new, then step 1913 may be atalking point. Alternately, in some embodiments, step 1913 may indicatethat the faulty equipment may be attributed to a third party. The thirdparty may include the person or entity from which the vehicle waspurchased or serviced. If the vehicle was not considered new by steps1909 or 1911, the next step may be decision point 1915 that may askwhether the defective part was serviced within the last month. Ifservice was performed on the defective part within the last month, atalking point may be reached, as shown by step 1917. In someembodiments, step 1917 may be an ALV of 0% for the driver of the vehiclewith the defective part. In some embodiments, at least a portion of theliability for the accident may be attributed to a third party at step1917. For example, the third party may be an individual or entity thatlast serviced the defective part. The third party may also include themanufacturer of the defective part. If the defective part was notserviced within the last month, decision point 1919 may ask if there wasany indication or history of the problem. Whether or not there was anindication or history of the problem, the faulty equipment factor mayreach a talking point as shown by steps 1921 and 1923. Steps 1921 and1923 may be indicated differently in an assessment report as discussedwith reference to FIG. 55. In alternate embodiments, if there was noindication or history of the problem at step 1919, another decisionpoint may be reached. The decision point may be to determine whether ornot unwanted acceleration occurred. If not, then a talking point may bereached and noted in the assessment report. However, if an unwantedacceleration did occur, the driver of the affected vehicle may beassessed an ALV of 0% liability. Additionally, a portion of theliability may be assessed to a third party. For example, the third partymay include a manufacturer or seller of the vehicle or the defectivepart.

FIG. 20 a is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of following too closely to a motorvehicle accident according to a first embodiment. As used herein, theterm “following too closely” generally refers to an action by the driverof a rear vehicle in which the driver of the rear vehicle fails toremain a safe distance from a vehicle in front of them before theaccident, thus contributing to the accident. In some embodiments, thefollowing too closely factor may be applied only to the tortfeasor andmay only be applied for accident type 1.

As shown by decision point 2001 in FIG. 20 a, if the accident type wasnot type 1 or the tortfeasor was not behind or following the otherparty, then the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2003. Ifthe accident type was type 1 and the tortfeasor was following the otherparty, then the next step 2005 may be to gather information regardingthe accident. The information may include the number of vehicle lengthsbetween the other party and the tortfeasor before the accident, and thespeed that the tortfeasor was traveling. Additionally, as shown by step2007, information may be gathered from any witnesses who may verify thenumber of vehicle lengths that were between the other party and thetortfeasor.

The next decision point 2009 may ask for the speed of the tortfeasor.The speed of the tortfeasor may be used to determine a recommended safefollowing distance the tortfeasor should have been traveling behind theother party in steps 2011 or 2013. For example, if the tortfeasor wastraveling less than 45 mph, then the recommended safe following distancein vehicle lengths may be determined by: speed/10, as shown by step2011. If the tortfeasor was traveling 45 mph or greater, the recommendedsafe following distance may be: 1.5*(speed/10), as shown by step 2013.From this determination, the decision point 2015 may ask whether theactual number of vehicle lengths was less than the recommended safefollowing distance. If the actual vehicle lengths were less than therecommended safe following distance, then the factor may be a talkingpoint as shown by step 2017. If the actual vehicle lengths between thetortfeasor and other party were not less than the recommended safefollowing distance, then the following too closely factor may not beapplicable, as shown by step 2019.

FIG. 20 b is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of following too closely to a motorvehicle accident according to a second embodiment. As shown by decisionpoint 2025 in FIG. 20 b, if the accident type was not type 1 or thetortfeasor was not behind or following the other party, then the factormay not be applicable as shown by step 2027. If the accident type wastype 1 and the tortfeasor was following the other party, then the nextstep 2029 may be to determine if the actual following distance was lessthan a recommended safe following distance according to the table inFIG. 20 c.

FIG. 20 c depicts a table for determining a recommended safe followingdistance. If the driver of the rear vehicle was traveling at less thanor equal to 45 mile per hour (mph), then row 2050 may be used todetermine the recommended safe following distance. If the driver of therear vehicle was traveling at greater than 45 mph, then row 2052 may beused to determine the recommended safe following distance. Column 2054may determine a surface of the road.

At speeds of less than or equal to 45 mph and with a gravel road surfacethe recommended safe following distance may be at least 20% of the speedin vehicle lengths (e.g., speed*0.2=number of vehicle lengths). Thus, at40 mph, the recommended safe travel distance may be 8 vehicle lengths(i.e., 40*0.2=8 vehicle lengths). At speeds of greater than 45 mph andwith a gravel road surface the recommended safe following distance maybe at least 30% of the speed in vehicle lengths.

For non-gravel road surfaces, a condition of the road surface may beconsidered in column 2056. The condition of the road surface mayinclude, but is not limited to, dry, wet, or muddy. In addition, thecondition of the road surface may consider whether the road is coveredwith snow or ice, has patches of snow or ice, or has plowed snow or ice.In various embodiments, other road conditions may also be considered.For example, a road condition that may be prevalent in a particularregion may be considered, such as having ruts. Once the road conditionhas been determined, a recommended safe following distance may bedetermined based on a percentage of the speed as specified in column2058. It is envisioned that the specific percentage of speed specifiedby various combinations of speed, road surface, and road condition maybe varied according to the preference of the insurance carrier, orregional or jurisdictional preferences.

FIG. 21 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of driving with headlights off to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. In some embodiments, theheadlights off factor may not apply to accident types 1, and 14. Thefactor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party.

In FIG. 21, decision point 2101 asks for the accident type. For accidenttypes 1, and 14, the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2105.Additionally, in some embodiments, the factor may not apply for accidenttypes 15 and 17. For the remaining accident types, the next step may bedecision point 2103 in which visibility at the time of the accident maybe determined. The visibility factor is illustrated in FIG. 35. Ifvisibility was good, then the driving with headlights off factor may notbe applicable as shown by step 2109. Otherwise, if visibility was poor,decision point 2111 may determine if the party was driving with thevehicle's headlights on. If it is determined that the party had theheadlights on, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step2119. If the vehicle's headlights were off at the time of the accident,then decision point 2121 may be reached. Decision point 2121 askswhether the location of the accident was relatively dark, for example,without streetlights at the time. If it was dark without streetlights,the party may have a “high” penalty value assessed, as shown by step2123. If it was not dark and/or streetlights were on, then the otherparty may have a “medium” penalty value assessed, as shown by step 2125.

In some embodiments, the method of determining the effect on liabilityof driving with headlights off may determine different penalty valuesdepending on the party being considered. For example, if it isdetermined that the tortfeasor was driving with headlights off, atalking point may be reached. If it is determined that the other partywas driving with headlights off, then penalty values as described abovemay be assessed to the other party.

In some embodiments, the method of determining the effect on liabilityof driving with headlights off may determine if both headlights were offor if only one headlight was off. If only one headlight was on, themethod may determine if the one headlight would have provided adequatelighting for the driver of the vehicle to drive safely. If it isdetermined that the one headlight may not have provided adequatelighting, the method may proceed to step 2121 to determine a penaltyvalue to assess. The method may also consider whether the one headlightwould have made the vehicle visible to the driver of the other vehicle(e.g., was the one working headlight visible to the driver of the othervehicle). If it is determined that the one headlight may not have madethe vehicle visible to the driver of the other vehicle, the method mayproceed to step 2121 to determine a penalty value to assess.

FIG. 22 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of driving with high beams on to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The high beams factor maybe applied to a tortfeasor and/or the other party. In some embodiments,the factor may only be applied for accident type 16. In suchembodiments, the factor may not be applied for the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination F16. The high beams factor maybe related to glare that causes a driver to be blinded.

In FIG. 22, decision point 2201 and step 2205 indicate the factor mayonly be applicable for accident type 16, not including roadwayconfiguration F. If the answer to decision point 2201 is yes, thendecision point 2203 may ask whether high beams were on at the time ofthe accident. If not, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown bystep 2209. If the high beams were on, the lighting may be determined atstep 2207. If the lighting was dark, with or without streetlights, thenliability may depend upon which party is being considered, as shown bydecision point 2211. If the lighting was other than dark, with orwithout streetlights (e.g., daylight, dawn, or dusk) then the factor maynot be applicable, as shown by step 2213. If the party is thetortfeasor, then decision point 2215 may ask whether the other party wasblinded. If the other party was blinded, then the factor may be atalking point, as shown by step 2219. If the other party was notblinded, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 2217.In other embodiments, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to thetortfeasor if the other party was blinded, and a “low” penalty value maybe assessed if the other party was not blinded.

If the party is the other party, then decision point 2221 may ask if thetortfeasor was blinded. If not, then the factor may not be applicable,as shown by step 2223. If the tortfeasor was blinded, the factor mayapply a “medium” penalty value, as shown in step 2227. In alternateembodiments, if the tortfeasor was blinded, then another decision pointmay be reached that may depend on the roadway configuration. If theroadway configuration was E, then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed. If the roadway configuration was A, B, or H, then a “low”penalty value may be assessed. If the roadway configuration was otherthan A, B, E, or H, than the factor may not be applicable.

FIG. 23 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of illness to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “illness”generally refers to a physical condition that prohibits the safeoperation of a vehicle. The illness factor may be applied to atortfeasor only for any accident type.

If the party is determined to be the other party at decision point 2301in FIG. 23, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step2303. For the tortfeasor, the next step is decision point 2305, whichmay ask whether the illness contributed to the accident. If not, thenthe factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2307. If illness ofthe tortfeasor contributed to the accident, then decision point 2309 mayask if the tortfeasor had a history of the illness. If not, then an ALVof 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor. If the tortfeasor hada history of illness, then decision point 2311 may ask if the tortfeasorwas medically cleared to drive. If the tortfeasor was not cleared todrive, then the illness factor may not be applicable as shown by step2317. If the tortfeasor was cleared to drive without medication, then anALV of 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor, as shown by step2315. If the tortfeasor was medically cleared to drive with medication,then decision point 2319 may be reached, which may ask if the requiredmedication had been taken. If the required medication had been taken,then an ALV of 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor, as shownby step 2321. If the required medication had not been taken, then 2323indicates that a talking point may be reached.

FIGS. 24 a and 24 b are flow charts for estimating the effect of afactor that accounts for the contribution of an improper lane change toa motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. An improper lanechange may be a lane change that was completed before the accident andcontributed to the accident. The improper lane change factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party only for accident type 1.In an embodiment, the factor may determine the effect on liability of animproper lane change based on vehicle lengths between the vehiclesbefore the accident and a subjective determination of the magnitude ofdeceleration of the parties. It is believed that an improper lane changemay reduce the opportunity of the tortfeasor to avoid the accidentand/or may reduce the tortfeasor's available stopping distance. Forexample, if other party and the tortfeasor are slowing and other partypulls in between the tortfeasor and whatever the other party and thetortfeasor are stopping for, the tortfeasor's available stoppingdistance may be reduced.

In FIG. 24 a, decision point 2401 may ask whether the accident type wastype 1, and whether the other party and right of way have beendetermined. If any of these conditions is not true, the factor may notbe applicable, as shown in step 2403. If the accident type is 1, and theother party and right of way have been determined, then the next step2404 may ask if the other party changed lanes prior to the accident. Ifthe other party did not change lanes, then step 2406 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable. If the other party changed lanes beforethe accident, the next step 2405 may be to determine effective vehiclelengths between the other party and the tortfeasor. The term “effectivevehicle lengths,” as used herein, generally refers to the actual vehiclelengths between the parties minus an adjustment.

The determination of the effective vehicle lengths 2405 is shown in FIG.24 b. Decision point 2433 may ask if the other party's lane change was asudden lane change. If it was, then decision point 2435 may ask if theother party signaled the lane change. If the other party signaled, thenthe effective vehicle lengths may be the actual vehicle lengths minusone, as shown in step 2439. If the other party did not signal, then theeffective vehicle lengths may be the actual vehicle lengths minus two,as shown by step 2440. If the answer to decision point 2433 is no, thedecision point 2437 may ask if the other party signaled the lane change.If the other party did signal the lane change, then the effectivevehicle lengths may be the actual vehicle lengths, as shown in step2441. If the other party did not signal, then the effective vehiclelengths may be the actual vehicle lengths minus one, as shown by step2442.

Turning again to FIG. 24 a, if the effective vehicle lengths are lessthan 1, then decision point 2409 may ask if the tortfeasor was slowingdown when the lane change took place. If the tortfeasor was not slowingdown, then a penalty value of 75% of liability may be assessed to theother party, as shown by step 2418. Alternately, in an embodiment, ifthe tortfeasor was not slowing down, then the liability may bedetermined by an experienced claims adjuster. If the tortfeasor wasslowing down in either a slight or an extreme manner, then a penaltyvalue of 100% of liability may be assessed to the other party at step2417 or 2419. In some embodiments, an ALV of 100% liability may beassessed at steps 2417 and 2419 rather than a penalty value.

If the effective vehicle lengths are about 1 or about 2, then decisionpoint 2411 again may ask if the tortfeasor was slowing down. If thetortfeasor was not slowing down, then a penalty value of 75% ofliability may be assessed to the other party, as shown by step 2422.Alternately, in an embodiment, if the tortfeasor was not slowing down,then the liability may be determined by an experienced claims adjuster.If the tortfeasor was slowing down in either a slight or an extrememanner, then a penalty value of 100% of liability may be assessed to theother party at step 2423 or 2425. In some embodiments, an ALV of 100%liability may be assessed at steps 2423 and 2425 rather than a penaltyvalue.

If the effective vehicle lengths are about 3 or about 4, then decisionpoint 2413 may ask if the other party was slowing down. If the otherparty was either not slowing down or slightly slowing, then no penaltyvalue may be assessed to either party, as shown by steps 2427 and 2429.If the other party was slowing down in an extreme manner at the time ofthe lane change, then a penalty value of 50% of liability may beassigned to the other party, as shown by steps 2431.

If the effective vehicle lengths are greater than about 4, then nopenalty value may be assessed to either party, as shown by steps 2407.

In other embodiments, the actual speed and/or distance between thevehicles before the accident or at the time of the lane change may bedetermined. An analysis like the one described above may then be used todetermine the effect on liability of the lane change based on the actualspeed and/or distance between the vehicles.

FIG. 25 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an improperly parked vehicle to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The improperly parkedvehicle factor may be applied only to the other party and only foraccident type 14. In an embodiment, a parked vehicle may be consideredlegally parked, illegally parked, or disabled.

In FIG. 25, decision point 2501 and step 2503 indicate that the factormay not be applicable to accident types other than type 14. If theaccident type is 14, then decision point 2505 may ask whether thevehicle was legally parked. If the vehicle was legally parked, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown by step 2507. If the vehicle wasnot legally parked, then decision point 2509 may ask if the vehicle wasdisabled. If the vehicle was not disabled and was not legally parked,then a penalty value may be estimated by an experienced claims adjuster,as shown by step 2513. If the vehicle was disabled and was not legallyparked, then decision point 2511 may ask where the vehicle was parked.If the vehicle was outside a travel lane, then regardless of whether thevehicle had its flashers on, the factor may not be applicable, as shownby decision point 2517 and steps 2519 and 2521.

If the vehicle was parked in a travel lane, then decision point 2515 mayask why it was there. If the vehicle ran out of gas, then decision point2523 asks if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value may bedetermined by experienced claims adjusters in steps 2525 and 2527 foreither a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was abandoned or there was noapparent reason why the vehicle was in the travel lane, then decisionpoint 2531 may ask if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty valuemay be determined by an experienced claims adjuster in steps 2533 and2535 for either a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was in the travellane due to a breakdown or accident, then decision point 2529 may ask ifthe other party had knowledge of the defect, which may have caused thebreakdown or accident. If yes, then decision point 2537 asks how longthe vehicle had been parked at the location of the accident. If thevehicle was there for less than or equal to one hour, then decisionpoint 2541 asks if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value maybe determined by experienced claims adjusters in steps 2545 or 2547 foreither a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was sitting in the travel lanefor more than one hour, then decision point 2541 asks if the vehicle hadits flashers on. A penalty value may be determined by experienced claimsadjusters in steps 2549 or 2551 for either a yes or no answer.

If the other party did not have knowledge of the defect at decisionpoint 2529, then decision point 2539 may ask how long the vehicle hadbeen parked at the location of the accident. If the vehicle was therefor less than or equal to one hour, then decision point 2553 asks if thevehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value may be determined byexperienced claims adjusters in steps 2557 or 2559 for either a yes orno answer. If the vehicle was sitting in the travel lane for more thanone hour, then decision point 2555 may ask if the vehicle had itsflashers on. A penalty value may be determined by experienced claimsadjusters in steps 2561 or 2563 for either a yes or no answer,respectively.

In other embodiments, a parked vehicle may be assumed to always have theright of way. Thus, no improperly parked vehicle factor may be used.

FIG. 26 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of improper signaling to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “impropersignaling” generally refers to signaling one action and doing another ornot signaling at all. In certain embodiments, an improper signal mayrefer only to signaling one action and doing another (i.e., not to “nosignal”). In such embodiments, an improper turn and lack of signal maynot be part of the improper signaling factor. “No signal” and improperturn and lack of signal may already be taken into account by the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination.

As shown in FIG. 26, if it is determined at decision point 2601 that theaccident type is 1, 14, or 15, then the factor may not be applicable, asshown in step 2603. For all other accident types, decision point 2605may ask if a party signaled improperly. If the answer to decision point2605 is no, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step2609. If the answer is yes, then a “low” penalty value may be assessedagainst the party that signaled improperly, as shown in step 2607. Insome embodiments, an additional decision point may follow decision point2605 if a party did signal improperly. The additional decision point maydetermine which party signaled improperly. In such embodiments, if it isthe other party that improperly signaled then a low penalty value may beassessed against the other party. If the tortfeasor improperly signaled,then a talking point may be reached.

FIG. 27 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an obstructed view or glare to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The obstructed view orglare factor may be applied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for anyaccident type. If an obstructed view or glare affected a party's view ofother vehicles or a traffic sign, the factor may be a talking point.

In FIG. 27, decision point 2701 may ask if a driver's view of anothervehicle or a traffic control was obscured. Step 2703 indicates that ifthe answer is no, then the factor may not be applicable. In someembodiments, if the answer to decision point 2701 is yes, then anotherdecision point may ask if the obstructed view or glare contributed tothe accident. If not, then the factor may not be applicable. If it isdetermined that the obstructed view or glare contributed to theaccident, the decision point may lead to decision point 2707. Decisionpoint 2707 may ask whether it was a glare obscured the driver's view. Ifit was a glare, then the factor may be a talking point, as shown by step2711. In some embodiment, if the answer to decision point 2707 is no,then there may be a request to provide a description of the obstructionfor use in an assessment report. In step 2715, the obstructed view maybe a talking point.

FIG. 28 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road condition to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road condition factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 28, the road condition at decision point 2801 may beeither dry or in some other condition. If the road condition is dry,then step 2803 may indicate that the factor may not be applicable. Otherconditions may include, but are not limited to, a roadway that is wet,has snow and/or ice, is muddy, has plowed snow, has been salted, or hassnow and/or ice patches. If other conditions apply to the roadway, thenstep 2805 may indicate that the factor may be a talking point.

FIG. 29 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road character to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road character factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 29, the road character at decision point 2901 may beeither level or some other character. If the road character is level,then step 2903 indicates that the factor may not be applicable. Otherroad characters may include, but are not limited to, a roadway that hasa hill, a hillcrest, or a sag-bottom of a hill. If other road charactersapply to the roadway, then step 2905 may indicate that the factor may bea talking point.

FIG. 30 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road surface to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road surface factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 30, the road surface at decision point 3001 may be eitherconcrete/asphalt or some other surface. If the road surface isconcrete/asphalt, then step 3003 may indicate that the factor may notapplicable. Other road surfaces may include, but are not limited tobrick, dirt, or gravel. If other surfaces apply to the roadway, thenstep 3005 indicates that the factor may be a talking point.

FIGS. 31 a-b may be used in combination with FIG. 31 c for estimatingthe effect of a factor that accounts for the contribution of speed to amotor vehicle accident according to a first embodiment. In someembodiments, the speed factor may not apply to accident type 14. Thespeed factor may be applied to either or both parties depending on thecircumstances of the accident.

In FIG. 31 a, step 3101 in estimating the speed factor may be todetermine the maximum safe speed. In some embodiments, step 3101 may bedirected to determining the maximum legal speed. Determination of themaximum safe speed is illustrated by the flow charts in FIG. 31 b. Asshown in FIG. 31 b, the maximum safe speed may be determined by reducingthe legal speed limit to account for adverse road conditions and/orweather conditions. If the road condition is dry and the weather clear,the maximum safe speed may be the legal speed limit. However, if theroad condition is not dry and/or the weather is not clear, then themaximum safe speed may be less than the speed limit. Decision point 3141in FIG. 31 b may inquire as to the road condition at the accident scene.Steps 3143, 3145, 3147, 3149, and 3151 may provide the corrections whenroad conditions are dry (e.g., 0), wet (e.g., 0.1×legal speed limit),snow (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit), muddy (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit),and ice (e.g., 0.3×legal speed limit), respectively. Similarly, decisionpoint 3153 in FIG. 31 b may inquire as to the weather at the accidentscene. Steps 3155, 3157, 3159, and 3161 may provide the corrections whenthe weather is clear (e.g., 0), smoke, etc. (e.g., 0.1×legal speedlimit), snowing (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit), and fog (e.g., 0.2×legalspeed limit), respectively. For example, if the speed limit is 60 milesper hour, the road condition is wet, and the weather is snowing the safespeed may be: 60−(0.1×60)−(0.2×60)=60−6−12=42 miles per hour.

Step 3105 in FIG. 31 a shows that if the answer to decision point 3103is accident type 14, the factor may not be applicable. For any otheraccident type, decision point 3107 may ask which party is underconsideration. If the party is the tortfeasor, then decision point 3111may ask if the party was going faster than the maximum safe speedcalculated in step 3101. If the answer is yes, then step 3113 may referto the table in FIG. 31 c to calculate the effect on the liability. Ifthe party was not going faster than the maximum safe speed, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown in step 3115.

If the party being considered at decision point 3107 is the other party,then decision point 3109 may ask if the accident type is 1. If theaccident type is not 1, then decision point 3119 may ask if the otherparty was going faster than the maximum safe speed calculated in step3101. If the answer is yes, then step 3121 may refer to the table inFIG. 31 c to calculate the effect on the liability. If the party was notgoing faster than the maximum safe speed, then step 3123 may indicatethat the factor may not be applicable.

If the accident type is 1 at decision point 3109, decision point 3117may ask if the other party was stopped at a yielding traffic control. Ifthe answer is yes, then step 3125 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable. If the answer is no, then decision point 3127 may ask if theother party was traveling at less than a minimum legal speed for theroadway. If not, then step 3132 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable. If the party was traveling at less than the minimum legalspeed, but not considerably slower, then decision point 3131 may ask ifthe vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3137 indicates that the factor maynot be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. If the flasherswere not on, step 3139 indicates that a “low” penalty value may beassessed against the other party. If the other party was travelingconsiderably slower than the minimum legal speed, then decision point3129 may ask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3133 indicates thatthe factor may not be applicable if the flashers were on. If theflashers were not on, step 3135 indicates that a “medium” penalty valuemay be assessed against the other party. In certain embodiments, otherconsiderations may be used in determining the effect on liability of theother party traveling at less than the minimum legal speed. For example,in certain jurisdictions, various methods may be allowed to indicate aslow moving vehicle. For example, a sign or placard may be displayed ona vehicle or the vehicle may have a flashing yellow light. In suchembodiments, the use of any approved method to provide warning to othertraffic that the vehicle is moving slowly may result in the factor beingnot applicable.

FIG. 31 c is a table illustrating the estimation of the effect of afactor that accounts for the contribution of speed to a motor vehicleaccident according to the first embodiment. The first column of FIG. 31c may be related to the maximum safe speed calculated as shown in FIG.31 b. The second column of FIG. 31 c may include an actual speed for thevehicle. The third column may include following distances subjectivelyestimated by an experienced claims adjuster for several ranges of theactual speed of a following vehicle. A following distance less than thatspecified for a given actual speed range may be considered close while afollowing distance greater than that specified may be considered far.The fourth and fifth columns may provide exemplary penalty values orALVs to be assessed to a party under consideration.

For example, if the determined maximum safe speed is 50 miles per hour,a vehicle with an actual speed of 65 miles per hour following at adistance of 175 feet may have a penalty value assessed of 10% accordingto FIG. 31 c. For the same maximum safe speed, a vehicle with an actualspeed of 85 miles per hour may have an absolute liability value of 70%assessed.

FIGS. 32 a-c may be used for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of speed to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to a second embodiment. In some embodiments, the speed factormay not apply to accident type 14, as shown in step 3205 of FIG. 32 b.

Referring to FIG. 32 a, a maximum safe speed may be estimated. Themaximum safe speed may be estimated as a percentage of the maximum legalspeed (i.e., speed limit) for the location. To estimate the percentageof the speed limit corresponding to the maximum safe speed, a roadcondition may be selected from the first column of the table. Each roadcondition may be associated with a percentage that may be used toestimate the maximum safe speed for the location. Thus, for example, avehicle traveling on a dry road having a speed limit of 65 mph may beestimated as having a maximum safe speed of 65 mph. However, if the roadis wet, the vehicle may be estimated to have a maximum safe speed ofabout 59 mph.

In some embodiments, after the safe speed from the table is determinedan additional adjustment may be made to the estimate of the maximum safespeed based on the weather. For example, in some embodiments, if theweather is raining, sleeting or hailing the safe speed from the table inFIG. 32 a may be reduced by 10%. If the weather is snowing, the safespeed determined from the table in FIG. 32 a may be reduced by 20%. Ifthe weather is foggy, smoky or smoggy the safe speed determined from thetable in FIG. 32 a may be reduced by 30%.

FIG. 32 b depicts a flow chart for determining the effect of speed onliability in a vehicle accident. Step 3205 shows that if the answer todecision point 3203 is accident type 14, the factor may not beapplicable. For any other accident type, decision point 3207 may askwhich party is under consideration. If the party is the tortfeasor, thendecision point 3211 may ask if the tortfeasor was going faster than theestimated maximum safe speed. If the answer is yes, then step 3213 mayrefer to the table in FIG. 32 c to calculate the effect on theliability. If the tortfeasor was not going faster than the maximum safespeed, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown in step 3215.

If the party being considered at decision point 3207 is the other party,then decision point 3209 may ask if the accident type is 1. If theaccident type is not 1, then decision point 3219 may ask if the otherparty was going faster than the estimated maximum safe speed. If theanswer is yes, then step 3221 may refer to the table in FIG. 32 c tocalculate the effect on the liability. If the party was not going fasterthan the maximum safe speed, then step 3223 indicates that the factormay not be applicable.

However, if the accident type is 1 at decision point 3209, decisionpoint 3217 may ask if the other party was stopped at a yielding trafficcontrol. If the answer is yes, then step 3225 indicates that the factormay not be applicable. If the answer is no, then decision point 3227 mayask if the other party was traveling at less than a minimum legal speedfor the roadway. In some embodiments, decision point 3227 may ask if theother party was traveling at less than a prevailing speed on theroadway. If the other party was not traveling at less than the minimumlegal speed, then step 3232 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable. If the other party was traveling at less than the minimumlegal speed, but not considerably slower, then decision point 3231 mayask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3237 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. If theflashers were not on, step 3239 indicates that a “low” penalty value maybe assessed against the other party. If the other party was travelingconsiderably slower than the minimum legal speed, then decision point3229 may ask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3233 indicates thatthe factor may not be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. Ifthe flashers were not on, step 3235 indicates that a “high” penaltyvalue may be assessed against the other party. In certain embodiments,other considerations may be used in determining the effect on liabilityof the other party traveling at less than the minimum legal speed asdiscussed with reference to FIGS. 31 a and 31 b.

FIG. 32 c may be used to estimate an effect on liability of thecontribution of speed to a vehicle accident. The table of FIG. 32 c maybe used in the same manner described for FIG. 31 c above.

FIG. 33 a is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of a sudden stop or swerve to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term“sudden stop or swerve” generally refers to a rapid deceleration orchange of direction. A sudden stop or swerve may typically be taken toavoid another object such as, but not limited to, an animal, pedestrian,road defect, another vehicle or road debris. FIGS. 33 b-f are flowcharts associated with FIG. 33 a that estimate the effect on liabilityof a sudden stop or swerve. A sudden stop or swerve factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor for accident types 11, 12, 13, and 16 or tothe other party for accident type 1.

In FIG. 33 a, decision point 3301 and step 3302 indicate that the factormay not be applicable to combinations other than to the tortfeasor foraccident types 11, 12, 13, or 16 and to the other party for accidenttype 1. If the party and accident type under consideration are one ofthese combinations, then decision point 3303 asks whether there was asudden stop or swerve in the accident. If there was not, then the factormay not be applicable, as shown by step 3304. If there was a sudden stopor swerve then the reason for the sudden stop or swerve may be solicitedat decision point 3305. The reason may include a road defect, debris, apedestrian, another vehicle, or an animal. In addition, FIG. 33 a alsoconsiders the case of a sudden stop or swerve for no apparent reason.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason is a road defect the flow chart may refer toa road defect flow chart 3380 as depicted in FIG. 33 b. The firstdecision point 3306 in road defect flow chart 3380 may asks if the partyshould have seen the road defect sooner than the party did. If yes, thena “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party underconsideration as shown by decision point 3307. If the answer to decisionpoint 3306 is no, then decision point 3308 may be reached where it isdetermined whether the party was familiar with the area of the accidentand/or the defect. If the party was familiar with the area of theaccident and/or the defect, then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed to the party, as shown by step 3309. If the party was notfamiliar with the area of the accident and/or the defect at decisionpoint 3308, then decision point 3312 may ask if the sudden stop orswerve was reasonable. If the answer is yes, then an ALV of 0% liabilitymay be assessed to the party at step 3313. In addition, it may be notedin an assessment report that a third party (e.g., a party responsible tomaintain the road or a party that cased the defect) may have contributedto the accident, and may thus bear a portion of the liability. If atdecision point 3312, it is determined that the action was notreasonable, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the partyat step 3314.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve at decisionpoint 3305 is debris, then the flow chart may refer to a debris flowchart 3381 as depicted in FIG. 33 c. Decision point 3315 of debris flowchart 3381 may ask whether the party should have seen the debris soonerthan the party did. If not, then decision point 3322 may be reached,which may ask if the sudden stop or swerve was reasonable. If the answerto decision point 3315 is yes, then decision point 3316 may determinewhether the debris was dangerous. If the debris was dangerous, thendecision point 3322 may ask if the sudden stop or swerve was reasonable.If the debris was not dangerous, then decision point 3319 may ask if thedebris was moving. If the debris was not moving, then a “medium” penaltyvalue may be assessed against the party. If the debris was moving, thendecision point 3320 may inquire whether the debris was coming towardsthe party. If not, then a talking point may be reached in step 3323. Ifyes, then decision point 3322 may ask if the sudden stop or swerve wasreasonable. At decision point 3322, if it is determined that the actionwas reasonable, then an ALV of 0% may be assessed against the party atstep 3317 In addition, it may be noted in an assessment report that athird party (e.g., a party responsible for the debris) may havecontributed to the accident, and may thus bear a portion of theliability. If at decision point 3322, it is determined that the actionwas not reasonable then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to theparty at step 3318.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve at decisionpoint 3305 is a pedestrian or other vehicle, then the flow chart mayrefer to a pedestrian or 3rd vehicle flow chart 3382 as depicted in FIG.33 d. It may be determined at decision point 3326 whether the suddenstop and swerve was reasonable. If it was reasonable, then an ALV of 0%may be assessed to the party under consideration, as shown by step 3328.If the sudden stop and swerve at decision point 3326 is not reasonable,then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown bystep 3329.

In FIG. 33 a, if there is no apparent reason for the sudden stop orswerve at decision point 3305, then the flow chart may refer to a noapparent reason flow chart 3383 as depicted in FIG. 33 e. If the actionwas a swerve, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step3332. Alternately, in some embodiments, a “medium” penalty value may beassessed if the action was a swerve. If the action was a sudden stop,decision point 3333 may ask if the accident occurred on city streets. Ifyes, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown bystep 3334. If not, a “high” penalty value may be assessed to the partyas shown by step 3335.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve at decisionpoint 3305 is an animal, then the flow chart may refer to an animal flowchart 3384 as depicted in FIG. 33 f. It may be determined at decisionpoint 3336 if the party should have seen the animal sooner. If not, thendecision point 3338 may be reached which may ask if the sudden stop orswerve was reasonable. If the answer to decision point 3336 is yes, thendecision point 3337 may ask if the situation was dangerous. If it isdetermined that the situation may have been dangerous, then a talkingpoint may be reached at step 3340. If the situation was not dangerous,then decision point 3339 may ask if the animal was moving. If the animalwas not moving, then decision point 3347 may ask if the animal wasdomestic as shown by decision point 3347. If the animal was domestic,then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed against the party.Additionally, it may be noted in an assessment report that a third party(e.g., the animal's owner) may bear a portion of the liability. If theanimal was not domestic, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessedagainst the party.

If the animal was moving, in answer to decision point 3339, decisionpoint 3341 may ask if the animal was coming towards the party. If theanimal was not, then a talking point may be reached, as shown by step3344. If the animal was coming towards the party, then decision point3345 may determine if the animal was domestic. If the animal was notdomestic, decision point 3343 may determine if the action wasreasonable. If it is determined that the action was reasonable then anALV of 0% may be assessed against the party at step 3352. If at decisionpoint 3343, it is determined that the action was not reasonable then a“medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party at step 3354. If atdecision point 3345 it is determined that the animal was domestic,decision point 3338 may determine if the sudden stop or swerve wasreasonable. If it is determined that the action was reasonable, an ALVof 0% may be assessed against the party at step 3356. In addition, itmay be noted in an assessment report that a third party (e.g., theanimal's owner) may have contributed to the accident, and may thus beara portion of the liability. If at decision point 3338, it is determinedthat the action was not reasonable then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed to the party at step 3358.

FIG. 34 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of all taillights or brake lights beingoff when they should have been on to a motor vehicle accident accordingto one embodiment. The factor may apply to accidents where alltaillights or brake lights on a vehicle were off when they should havebeen on and contributed to the accident.

In FIG. 34, decision point 3401 and step 3403 indicate that the factormay not be applicable for combinations other than to the tortfeasor foraccident types 9 or 10 and to the other party for accident type 1. Ineach case, the visibility should be known. The next step for one ofthose combinations is decision point 3405, which may ask if the partywas braking when the accident occurred. If the party was not braking,then decision point 3409 may ask the visibility at the accident scene.Determination of the visibility is discussed with regard to FIG. 35.Step 3419 indicates that the factor may not be applicable if thevisibility is good. If the visibility is poor, then decision point 3421may ask if the tail lights were on. In an embodiment, tail lights may beconsidered to be on if at least one tail light is on. Step 3433indicates that the factor may not be applicable if the tail lights wereon.

However, if tail lights were not on, decision point 3435 may ask whetherit was dark without street lights. If the answer is yes to decisionpoint 3435, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed against the partywith the tail lights off at step 3445. Step 3447 indicates that if theanswer to decision point 3435 is no, then a “low” penalty value may beassessed against the party with the tail lights off.

If the answer to decision point 3405 is yes, then decision point 3407may ask whether brake lights were on. In an embodiment, brake lights maybe considered on if at least one brake light was on. In otherembodiments, brake lights may be considered to be on if two or morebrake lights were on. Step 3411 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable if brake lights were on. If brake lights were not on,decision point 3413 inquires into the visibility at the accident scene.If visibility was good, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed tothe party with brake lights off, as shown by step 3415. If thevisibility was poor, then decision point 3417 may ask if the tail lightswere on. If the tail lights were on, then, according to step 3439, a“low” penalty value may be assessed to the party with the brake lightsoff. However, if the tail lights were not on then decision point 3431may be reached. The steps 3438 and 3440 are identical to steps 3445 and3447 previously described.

FIG. 35 is a flow chart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of visibility to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The visibility factor may be applied to thetortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. As used herein, theterm “visibility” is generally defined as a combination of the weatherand the lighting that adversely affects ability to see other vehicles,traffic controls, etc. In some embodiments, visibility may not be anadjusting or talking point factor in and of itself. It may be mentionedas a comment to the accident. Visibility may be an input to otherfactors. In some embodiments, weather may be a separate flow chart thatmay be used as an input to other factors. Lighting may include, but isnot limited to, day, dawn, dusk, night with street lights, and nightwithout lights. Weather may include, but is not limited to, clear,cloudy, raining, sleet/hail/freezing rain, snow, fog/smoke/smog/dust,and fog with rain.

FIG. 35 is a flow chart that estimates the effect of visibility on theliability. The first step in FIG. 35 is decision point 3501 that may askthe lighting conditions at the accident scene. If the lighting wasdaytime, then decision point 3503 may determine the weather conditions.If the weather is clear/cloudy as shown by step 3517, then the factormay not be applicable. Alternatively, if the weather is “all others”(i.e., other than clear or cloudy) as shown by step 3519, the visibilitymay be a talking point. As input into another flow chart, steps 3519 and3513 may be considered poor visibility and steps 3517 and 3511 may beconsidered good visibility.

Similarly, the adverse weather may be determined at decision point 3505if the answer to decision point 3501 is “other.” If the answer todecision point 3505 is “clear/cloudy,” then visibility may be a talkingpoint in reference to lighting as shown by step 3511. If the answer todecision point 3505 is “all other,” then visibility may be a talkingpoint in reference to weather and lighting as shown by step 3513.

FIG. 36 depicts an embodiment of a flow chart and table for noting in anassessment report the effect of disobeyed signs or markings. In FIG. 36,decision point 3601 may determine if one or more signs or markings weredisobeyed. If at decision point 3601, it is determined that no signs ormarkings were disobeyed, the factor may not be applicable as shown atstep 3605. If signs or markings were disobeyed, the method may refer totable 3607 at step 3603.

Table 3607 may provide a list of potential signs and markings that mayhave been disobeyed in column 3609. If a sign or marking was disobeyed,a note may be added to an assessment report indicating the sign ormarking disobeyed and whether a citation resulted. If no citation wasissued, then a note from violation column 3613 corresponding to the signor marking disobeyed may be added to the assessment report. If acitation was issued then a note from citation column 3615 correspondingto the sign or marking disobeyed may be added to the assessment reportas discussed with reference to FIG. 55.

FIG. 37 is an illustration of how a factor influence may be used toadjust the effect of factors on the liability according to oneembodiment. The factor influence may determine the effect the sum of theeffects on liability resulting from factors may have on the baseliability. As shown in FIG. 37, the factor influence may have fourlevels: none (no adjustment), normal, low, and high. A “high” factorinfluence may allow factors to modify the liability significantly. A“low” factor influence may reduce the influence of the factors belowthat determined by the “normal” factor influence. Each factor influencelevel may have a percentage value associated with it, for example,normal=100%, low=50%, and high=150%. Therefore, a “low” factor influencemay cut in half the summation of all factor adjustments. In someembodiments, regardless of the factor influence setting, the lower andupper bounds of the liability may still constrain the final liabilityrange.

Once a method is used to estimate the effect of the factors on the baseliability, liability values (L_(A) and L_(B)) for each vehicle may becalculated by combining the contribution for each vehicle with itscorresponding base liability. Since the sum of the calculatedliabilities may be greater than 100%, it may be necessary to calculatenormalized liabilities from adjusted liabilities:L_(AN)=L_(A)/(L_(AN)+L_(A)) and L_(BN)=100% −L_(AN). If L_(AN) isgreater than the upper bound, the final liability may be set equal tothe upper bound. If L_(AN) is less than the lower bound of theliability, the final liability may be set equal to the lower bound.

Alternatively, the effect of the factors on liability may be combinedwith the base liability according to a debit-credit method. A portion ofthe effect to liability of one vehicle may be added to that party'sliability and the remainder may be subtracted from the other party'sliability. For example, one half may be added to one party's liabilityand one half subtracted from the other party's liability.

In an embodiment, the liability may be expressed as a range rather thana single value. The range may be generated by a range radius. As usedherein, the term “range radius” generally refers to a percentage valuethat may be added and subtracted from the final liability to create therange: L_(AN)±range radius. The range radius may be adjustable by theuser and may be applied to all claims.

In one embodiment, a user may specify a range snap-to value. As usedherein, the term “range snap-to” value generally refers to a multiple toround up or down to for the range. For example, the calculated liabilitymay be 82±5%. If the range snap-to value is 5 percent, the liability maybe adjusted to 80±5%.

The liability range may be adjusted if any part of it falls outside ofthe upper and lower bounds of liability. In one embodiment, theliability range may be shifted. If the maximum of the liability range isgreater than the upper bound of liability, the maximum of the liabilityrange may be shifted to the upper bound of liability. The minimum of therange may be shifted to the lower bound of liability if the liabilityrange is larger than the upper bound to lower bound range. If theliability range is less than the upper bound to lower bound range, theminimum of the liability range may be shifted to the upper bound minustwice the range radius.

Similarly, if the minimum of the liability range is less than the lowerbound of liability, the minimum of the liability range may be shifted tothe lower bound of liability. The maximum of the range may be shifted tothe upper bound of liability if the liability range is larger than theupper bound to lower bound range. If the liability range is less thanthe upper bound to lower bound range, the maximum of the liability rangemay be shifted to the lower bound plus the twice the range radius.

Alternatively, rather than shifting, the liability range may betruncated to keep as much of the original liability range as possible.If the maximum of the liability range is greater than the upper bound,the maximum of the range may be the upper bound of liability. If theminimum of the range is less than the upper bound, the minimum of therange may be the lower bound of liability.

In one embodiment, a knowledge acquisition utility may be provided to auser to allow the user to configure information associated with impactgroups for roadway configuration/accident type combinations. Forexample, sets of impact groups associated with each roadwayconfiguration and accident type may be configured. Further, each impactgroup may have one or more estimates of base liability associated withit. For example, each impact group in a roadway configuration andaccident type combination may have a base liability, an upper range ofliability, and a lower range of liability for each party associated withit. FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a window that may be used for selectinga roadway configuration/accident type combination according to oneembodiment. As shown and discussed in reference to FIG. 8 b, a givenroadway configuration/accident combination may be associated with aplurality of impact groups where an impact group may be a collection ofpairs of impact points. Impact points may be defined by the impact pointdiagram in FIG. 8 a. Each of the pairs of impact points in the impactgroup may have the same base liability and lower and upper bounds ofliability. A claims organization may designate a user such as anexperienced claims adjusters to use the knowledge acquisition utility todetermine the number of impact groups for each roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination and the impact point pairs ineach impact group.

A claims organization may further employ a user (e.g., an experiencedclaims adjusters) to assign base liabilities and lower and upper boundsof liability to each of the impact groups derived with the aid of theknowledge acquisition utility. As used herein, the term “knowledgeacquisition utility” generally refers to an application that allows aclaims organization to configure a system for estimating liability in anaccident to meet the claims organizations needs. For example, theknowledge acquisition utility may allow the claims organization to setbase liability, lower bound of liability and upper bound of liabilityfor each impact group. The knowledge acquisition utility may also allowthe claims organization to configure a numerical value associated withpenalty factors. For example, a claims organization may use theknowledge acquisition utility to set a “low” penalty value equal to a10% adjustment in liability. Likewise, a “medium” penalty value may beset at 20% and a “high” penalty value set at 30%. In variousembodiments, other determinants of liability may also be configurable bythe claims organization using the knowledge acquisition utility,including, but not limited to, situational weights associated withvarious factors, range radii, range snap-tos, etc.

In an embodiment, a knowledge acquisition utility may be used inconjunction with a tuning utility. A tuning utility may include aknowledge acquisition utility. In an embodiment of a tuning utility, theuser may select a roadway configuration and accident type combination toedit from a window as described with reference FIGS. 38 and 39. The usermay input base liabilities, lower, and upper bounds of liability foreach of the impact groups corresponding to the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination. After the base liabilities areinput, the user may run one or more pre-configured test scenarios builtinto the tuning utility. The user may then analyze the results andrefine the base liabilities. The procedure may be repeated until theuser is satisfied with the results produced by the liability estimationsystem. This process of entering estimates of liability or effect onliability, then testing those estimates by use or one or morepre-configured test scenarios is referred to herein as “tuning.” Theuser may enter base liability information for all other roadwayconfiguration and accident type combinations, run test scenarios,analyze output, refine tuning parameters, and repeat until satisfied.Likewise, the user may enter factor tuning information, as describedwith reference to FIG. 40, test each factor individually untilsatisfied, test combinations of factors, and adjust tuning parameters asnecessary.

The window depicted in FIG. 38 contains a matrix 3800 of roadwayconfigurations, R, and accident types, A. Diagrams representing roadwayconfigurations are illustrated in FIG. 5. Diagrams representing accidenttypes are illustrated in FIG. 4.

The elements of the matrix labeled with a “--” are combinations whichmay not be considered because the particular roadway configuration andaccident type combination may be considered implausible. In theembodiment depicted, the implausible combinations are a subset of thecombinations labeled with an “N” in FIG. 6. In some embodiments, allroadway configuration and accident type combinations may be available tothe claims organization. In such embodiments, the claims organizationmay utilize the knowledge acquisition utility to designate one or morecombinations implausible.

To configure a particular roadway configuration and accident typecombination, a user may select the desired values of A and R from menus3801 and 3803, respectively. Selecting Edit push-button 3805 may open anedit combination window (as depicted in FIG. 39), which may allow theuser to edit impact groups for a given roadway configuration andaccident type combination. Once a combination has been selected andconfigured, an indicator adjacent to combination 3807 may indicate thatthe combination has been configured. For example, a checkbox may beassociated with each combination. In such embodiment, an “X” may appearin the check box to designate that a combination has been configured.

FIG. 39 is a screen shot of edit combination window 3925 from aknowledge acquisition utility according to one embodiment. The windowmay display a graphic representation of selected roadway configuration3927 and accident type 3929. For example, in FIG. 39 the accident typeshown is type 2, as shown in FIG. 4, and the roadway configuration is B,as shown in FIG. 5. A graphic representation of impact point diagram3931 (as shown in FIG. 8 a) may also be displayed. The window maydisplay a text description of the accident type and roadwayconfiguration combination 3933. For example, as depicted in FIG. 39, thetext description may be, “Left Turn Crossing Traffic on a Four WayIntersection.”

The user may also be provided with free-form text entry area 3935 toprovide comments directed to the combination. For example, a claimsorganization may desire a particular comment to be displayed to a userentering claims information containing the combination.

Edit combination window 3925 may also include a plurality of impactgroup text areas 3937 configured to display impact groups and associatedimpact pairs. Associated with each impact group text area may be impactgroup edit area 3939. Impact group edit area 3939 may allow the user toenter one or more impact pairs to be associated with the impact group.

Also associated with each impact group text area 3937 may be liabilityinput text area 3940. Liability input text area 3940 may include baseliability field 3942, minimum liability field 3941, and maximumliability field 3943 associated with an accident where vehicle A has theright of way and base liability field 3945, minimum liability field3944, and maximum liability field 3946 associated with an accident wherevehicle B has the right of way. In an embodiment, liability input textarea 3940 may allow the user to input estimates of liability for onlyone vehicle in the accident. For example, the liability input text areamay be related to the liability of vehicle A only. In alternateembodiments, liability input text area 3940 may allow the user to inputliability estimates for each vehicle. In either embodiment, liabilityinput text area 3940 may display an estimate associated with a secondvehicle. The liability estimate for the second vehicle may be determinedfrom the liability estimates provided for the first vehicle on theassumption that liability must total to 100% between the two vehicles.

In an embodiment, the user may edit factors associated with the roadwayconfiguration and accident type combination by selecting Factor button3947 in editing combination window 3925. Selecting Factor button 3947may bring up situational weight configuration window 3950, as depictedin FIG. 40.

FIG. 40 is a screen shot of situational weight configuration window 4001according to one embodiment. Situational weight configuration window4001 may be used to configure situational weights associated with one ormore factors for a given roadway configuration and accident typecombination. The situational weights may be used to adjust the magnitudeof the effect of the factors on liability, as described with referenceto FIG. 9 a.

Situational weight configuration window 4001 may include a number ofcolumns. First vehicle column 4003 (e.g., column “A”) may include rowsof data associated with a first vehicle (e.g., vehicle “A”). Secondvehicle column 4007 (e.g., column “B”) may include rows of dataassociated with a second vehicle (e.g., vehicle “B”). Factors column4005 may include rows containing text descriptions of various factors. Auser may select a situational weighting associated with each vehicle foreach factor listed in factors column 4005. For example, in row 4009, theuser has selected a “low” situational weight for vehicle A and a “high”situational weight for vehicle B for the speed factor.

In some embodiments, characteristics other than base liabilities, andfactors may be adjusted by a knowledge acquisition utility. Thesecharacteristics include, but are not limited to, factor rankings,penalty values, range radii, range snap-tos, and absolute liabilityvalues. Alternatively, penalty values may not be tunable since they maybe estimated by a method as illustrated in the flow charts in FIGS. 10 ato 36.

FIG. 41 is a screen shot of impact point display window 4100 of aknowledge acquisition utility for displaying impact point pairs for aroadway configuration and accident type combination according to oneembodiment. Impact point display window 4100 may provide a mechanism fordisplaying to the user of a knowledge acquisition utility what impactpoint combinations make up the impact group that is being considered bythe user. Impact point display window 4100 along with the roadwayconfiguration and accident type combination may provide a context withinwhich to make decisions about base liability.

Impact point display window 4100 displays two vehicles with labeledimpact points that belong to a given impact group. When the user selectsan impact point on a first vehicle, the selected impact point andcorresponding impact points on a second vehicle may be highlighted. Theselected impact point on the first vehicle and the highlighted impactpoints on the second vehicle are pairs of impact points in the impactgroup. For example, in impact point display window 4100, impact point(801) on the vehicle on the left is selected resulting in impact points(807), (808), and (809) being highlighted on the vehicle on the right.Therefore, (801, 807), (801, 808), and (801, 809) are pairs of impactpoints.

FIG. 42 illustrates a screen shot of Claim Data window 4200. Claim datawindow 4200 may be divided into a number of frames. Control frame 4201may provide access to basic controls for the application. For examplestandard pull down menus may provide access to file, edit, tool and helpmenus as are commonly used. Additionally, controls frame 4201 mayinclude a number of frame selection buttons (e.g., buttons 4203, 4205,4207, 4209, 4211, and 4213). Each frame selection button may cause adata display frame 4250 to display different data. For example,selecting “ROW” frame selection button 4205 may cause data regardingright of way in a vehicle accident to be displayed. Claim data window4200 may also include claim data frame 4225. Claim data frame 4225 mayinclude basic claim data associated. In some embodiments, claim dataframe 4225 may continuously display the basic claim data while datadisplay frame 4250 allows other data related to the accident to beentered. Accessories frame 4275 may allow the user to select a number oftools that may be useful to the user as claim data is being entered.Legal reference button 4277 may allow the user to access informationrelated to the laws of a jurisdiction in which the accident took place.Calculator button 4279 may allow the user to access a calculatorfeature. Comments button 4281 may allow the user to access a free-formtext entry area in which comments may be entered. Show details button4283 may allow the user to access a summary report screen that displaysdetails related to the accident.

Claim data frame 4225 may contain data entry fields including, but notlimited to, a claim number, a policy number, an accident location, whoreported the accident, whether police where called, what branch of thepolice was called, whether there were any injuries, whether there werefatalities, what state the accident took place, the date of theaccident, what time the accident took place, a policy start date, apolicy end date, who the accident was reported to, and a description ofthe loss due to the accident. In an embodiment, a system may access aclaims organization's database to retrieve information related to apolicy or an insured party based on a policy number. For example, thepolicy start and end dates may be automatically entered by the systembased on information in the claims organization's database.

Vehicles frame 4300, as depicted in FIG. 43, depicts a frame forentering data related to the vehicles involved in the accident accordingto one embodiment. Vehicles frame 4300 may appear in data display frame4250 if the user selects “Basic” frame selection button 4203 and vehicleinformation frame tab 4303. Other options available to the user when“Basic” frame selection button 4203 is selected may include partyinformation frame tab 4301 and additional information frame tab 4305.The user may enter the number of vehicles involved in the accident innumber field 4307. The user may enter the types of each vehicle in typefields 4309. In an embodiment, the number of type fields provided maycorrespond to the number of vehicles entered into vehicles field 4307.In some embodiments, two type fields 4309 may be provided by default. Insuch embodiments, a first type field may correspond to the insuredparty's vehicle type, and a second type field may correspond to theclaimant party's vehicle type. In such embodiments, additional typefields may be provided if more than two vehicles were involved in theaccident. Vehicle types may include, but are not limited to, anautomobile, a light truck, and another type.

FIG. 44 is a screen shot of additional information screen 4400.Additional information screen 4400 may be displayed when AdditionalInformation tab 4305 is selected. Additional information screen 4400 mayallow the user to enter a description of the accident in a free-formtext entry box.

FIG. 45 illustrates a screen shot of party information frame 4500. Partyinformation frame 4500 may be displayed in data display frame 4250 whenParty Information tab 4301 is selected. The user may be prompted toselect a party involved in the accident from the menu that may include:Insured, Claimant, or Witness. The user may be presented with inputfields related to identifying information specific to the partyselected. For example, the user may enter the selected party's name,address, city, zip code, phone number, gender, and state into entryfields. The user may enter a description of the accident made by theparty into a free-form text entry box.

FIG. 46 depicts an embodiment of a legal reference screen. The legalreference screen may be accessed by selection of legal reference button4277 in accessories frame 4275. The legal reference screen may providethe user with legal information for a jurisdiction in which the accidentoccurred. The legal information may be pertinent to determiningliability in the accident. In an embodiment, the legal referenceinformation may be accessed from a subscription legal reference service,such as the Westlaw legal information service, available from West Groupof St. Paul, Minn. For example, laws pertaining to proportionateresponsibility for the jurisdiction may be displayed. The jurisdictionmay be determined by the state selected in claim data frame 4225.

FIG. 47 illustrates an embodiment of right of way data frame 4701 thatmay be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 in controlsframe 4201 and “Accident/Roadway” tab 4703. Based on data provided inright of way frame 4701, the system may determine a right of way in anaccident by a method described with reference to FIGS. 7 a and 7 b. Insome embodiments, a right of way data frame may allow a user to make amanual determination of right of way. Accident/Roadway tab 4703 maypresent a user with a list of vehicles involved in accident 4705 andselection frames for accident type 4707 and roadway configuration 4709.Accident type frame 4707 may display a graphical representation of acurrently selected accident type. Roadway configuration frame 4709 maydisplay a graphical representation of a currently selected roadwayconfiguration. A user may select a different accident type or roadwayconfiguration by using selection buttons 4711 and 4713, respectively.

FIG. 48 illustrates an embodiment of traffic controls data frame 4801that may be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 incontrols frame 4201 and “Traffic Controls” tab 4803. Using trafficcontrols data frame 4801, the user may enter information regarding oneor more traffic controls that may have been present at the scene of anaccident. The user may indicate a primary and a secondary trafficcontrol in “primary traffic control” field 4805 and “secondary trafficcontrol” field 4807, respectively. The user may also indicate if atraffic control was disobeyed in field 4809. The user may also indicateif a traffic control was partially obscured in field 4811. The user mayindicate if a traffic control was completely obstructed or missing infield 4813. The user may indicate if an intersection appeareduncontrolled at the time of the accident in field 4815. Informationprovided in fields 4809, 4811, 4813, and 4815 may be used to determinethe effect of a missing or defective traffic control on liability on theaccident.

FIG. 49 illustrates an embodiment of impact points data frame 4901 thatmay be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 in controlsframe 4201 and “Impact Points” tab 4903. Using impact points frame 4901,the user may enter information regarding impact points for each vehiclein the accident. In an embodiment, impact points data frame 4901 maypresent the user with graphical representations of the vehiclesinvolved, referenced by numerals 4905 and 4907. In such embodiments, theuser may be able to select the impact points on the graphicalrepresentation.

FIG. 50 illustrates an embodiment of discords report frame 5001 that maybe displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 in controlsframe 4201 and “Discords” tab 5003. As a user selects informationdescribing an accident, two or more pieces of information may describean implausible circumstance. For example, an accident type of head onmay be selected with a roadway configuration of merging from the left.This accident type and roadway configuration may be unlikely to occur.Discord report frame 5001 may display a report indicating to the userthat an unlikely combination has been selected. This may allow the userto change one or more selections, or to proceed to a manual assessmentof the accident using the existing selections.

FIG. 51 illustrates an embodiment of factors input frame 5101 that maybe displayed if a user selects gather 4207 in controls frame 4201.Factors input frame 5101 may provide input area 5105 for each vehicleinvolved in the accident. For example, as depicted in FIG. 51, factorsinput frame 5101 has an input area for a claimant and an insured. Theclaimant input area may be accessed by selecting claimant tab 5103. Eachinput area 5105 may include questions column 5107, which may listquestions to be asked during an accident investigation. Alternately, insome embodiments, questions column 5107 may provide a column of inputfields in which an adjuster may enter questions that were asked duringthe accident investigation. Some embodiments may include both an area toinput adjuster originated question and a list of system promptedquestions.

Questions asked may pertain to individual factors or groups of factors.Factors category selection area 5104 may allow the user to select anindividual factor or a category of factors for which information may beinput. For example, by selecting a visibility factor category fromfactor category selection area 5104, the user may be provided a list ofquestions related to the visibility factor as described with regard toFIG. 35.

Factors input area 5101 may also include one or more versions columnsfor entering responses to questions provided by various parties. Forexample, insured version column 5109 and claimant version column 5111are depicted in FIG. 51. If other parties provide answers to one or morequestions, additional version columns may be generated by selecting addversion button 5113. Alternately, a version column may be deleted by useof delete version button 5115. Version columns may be used to enterresponses provided by a party regarding the questions in questionscolumn 5107.

FIG. 52 depicts an embodiment of conflict identification frame 5201according to one embodiment. Conflict identification frame 5201 mayassist an adjuster in identifying two or more answers from witnessesthat appear to be in conflict with one another. The assessment ofliability in a motor vehicle accident may involve analysis of multiplestatements of the description of an accident. In one embodiment, theconsistency between different witness statements may be assessed. Thestatements may be from the drivers or passengers of vehicles involved,bystanders and/or other drivers not involved in the accident. In someinstances, statements provided by these various witnesses may not agreeon all of the details of the accident. For example, details that may beimportant in assessing liability may include, but are not limited to,speed of the vehicles, whether brakes were applied, whether signalingwas improper or nonexistent, whether a vehicle yielded, the roadcondition, the road character, road defects, whether a traffic controlwas defective, visibility, whether a driver was wearing requiredcorrective lenses, distance between the vehicle before the accident,whether headlights were off, the presence of an animal/pedestrian/othervehicle, whether a vehicle made a sudden stop or swerve, whethertaillight or brake lights were off, whether a vehicle undertook unsafebacking, whether there was failure to take evasive action, whether avehicle had high beams on, and whether a lane change was improper.

The system may compare answers given by each witness to variousquestions to determine if inconsistencies exist. In an embodiment,inconsistencies may be identified even if witnesses were not asked thesame questions. For example, the system may flag an inconsistency if adriver answers no when asked, “Did you consume any alcohol prior to theaccident?” but a witness answers yes when asked, “Did the drive of thevehicle seem to be impaired?” Claims adjusters may use details that aredescribed inconsistently for informational purposes. The system may listinconsistencies identified in tabular form in conflict identificationframe 5201. Details with inconsistent versions may be noted in thetabulation of results. For example, question column 5203 may list ageneral question having inconsistent responses. Continuing the previousexample regarding alcohol, question column 5203 may contain thequestion, “Did the alcohol contribute to the accident?” Regarding thegeneral question in column 5203, source column 5205 may list each sourcethat provided an answer regarding the question. Response column 5207 maylist responses associated with each source. Conflict identificationframe 5201 may further provide the user with adjuster selection field5209. Adjuster selection field 5209 may allow the user to select aresponse that the adjuster desires to designate as accurate. In otherembodiments, the system may identify a most likely version of theaccident. The most likely version may correspond to the version with themost responses that are consistent across all of the witnesses. Forexample, if 5 witnesses were asked about a particular detail and threeprovided consistent answers, the system may flag these answers as themost likely version of the accident.

FIG. 53 depicts an embodiment of review frame 5301. After adetermination of a most likely version of the accident has been made,the user may be provided with review frame 5301 to review the responsesretained as the most likely version of the accident. The user may selecta category of factors to review from a list of categories of factors5303. Questions applicable to the selected category of factors may bedisplayed in questions column 5305. Answers from the determined mostlikely version of the accident may be displayed in answers columns 5307and 5309.

In certain circumstances, the system may not be able to determine anaccurate estimate of liability. For example, highly unusualcircumstances of the accident may inhibit accurate assessment by thesystem. In such cases, manual assessment input screen 5401 may beprovided, as depicted in FIG. 54. Manual assessment input screen 5401may include insured liability field 5403 and claimant liability field5405. Additionally, manual assessment input screen 5401 may includecomments field 5407, where the user may provide comments regarding theneed for the manual assessment and/or circumstances related to theaccident.

FIG. 55 depicts Consultation Report frame 5501 according to oneembodiment. Consultation Report frame 5501 may include text box 5502 fordisplaying an Assessment Summary report. The Assessment Summary reportmay include a summary of data gathered and an assessment of liability.For example, the Assessment summary report may include, but is notlimited to, the Claim Number, the minimum and maximum percentage ofliability, the accident type, the roadway configuration, commentsregarding one or more factors, proximate cause, accident date, whetherthe accident involved injuries, whether the police were called, theaccident location, accident description, who the accident was reportedby and reported to, jurisdiction, relevant traffic laws of thejurisdiction, identity of the claims adjuster that addressed the claim,and vehicle information for each vehicle. Vehicle information mayinclude the Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”), make, model, year,impact point, vehicle type, right of way, speed, factors that apply tothe vehicle, and party who was driving the vehicle.

The user may indicate whether the assessment is complete or incompleteby using Assessment Status field 5503. The user may indicate whether theclaim has settled using Settled field 5505. A settlement date may beentered in Settlement Date field 5511.

In an embodiment, notes may be added to an Assessment Summary reportdepending on the determination reached for each factor. With referenceto FIGS. 10 a to 36, each terminus of each factor may have a reportmessage code associated with it. Report message codes listed in anassessment report may aid the adjuster in explaining the assessmentand/or in negotiating a settlement. It may be especially helpful to theadjuster to have talking points reached in the assessment listed in theassessment report.

In an embodiment, other reports may be available to a user as well. Forexample, a user may be able to configure ad hoc reports related tohistorical accidents. The system may also provide one or morepre-configured reports. For example, a number of administrative orbusiness reports may be available. Such reports may include, but are notlimited to, reports pertaining to previous settlements reached,accidents claimed in a particular region or under a particular policy,and accidents associated with various categories of drivers or vehicles.

In another embodiment, a graphical user interface similar to thatillustrated in FIGS. 42 to 54 may be combined with accidentreconstruction methodology to assess the credibility of details inwitness accident descriptions. Accident reconstruction software may beapplied to determine details relating to speed, time, and distance ofthe vehicles involved in the accident. Such details may be inferred byaccident reconstruction software from physical measurements. Forexample, the impact speed may be inferred from physical damage tovehicles. The results of the accident reconstruction software may thenbe compared to the description of the corresponding detail in thewitness statements. The credibility of a witness statement may then beevaluated according to its consistency with the results of the accidentreconstruction software.

Accident reconstruction software may employ accident reconstructionmethods that may be dependent on a number of variables. Variables may berelated to the preservation of the accident evidence, limitations inavailable specifications, and choice of accident reconstructiontechniques. Accident reconstruction techniques may include damage-basedand trajectory analysis techniques.

Variables related to accident evidence include the facts of theparticular case, which may be unique for the case. Generally, access tosome facts may not be under the direct control of an accidentreconstructionist, however, the reconstructionist may requestdocumentation and/or memorialization of these facts. The facts of a casemay form the basis for the reconstruction. Facts may be preserved ormemorialized in photos or measurements by police or other investigatorsat the time of the accident.

Accident evidence may include positions of rest of vehicles in theaccident (e.g., where they stop), tire marks, roadway markings, damageto vehicles, and damage to property. The memorialization of these itemsmay vary widely between cases. First, accident investigators (e.g.,police on the scene of the accident) may identify the important aspectsof the accident required to permit a detailed reconstruction. Thedetermination of the requirements of a reconstruction may be incidentalto other activities, for example, life-saving or the restoration of asafe environment to the accident site. An investigator may try topreserve as much of the evidence as possible. In this initial phase ofmemorialization, photography, paint markings of vehicles' positions ofrest, impact marking, and debris may be used to preserve evidence. Itmay be advantageous to photograph items of evidence before putting paintmarks on. Techniques for measuring various items at the scene mayinclude sight estimates, pacing, tape measurements, and surveying typeequipment. The variation in the accuracy of these techniques may detractfrom the ultimate accuracy of the speed estimates.

The vehicle damage data may not necessarily be preserved at the scene.Typically, vehicle damage may remain unchanged for weeks and/or years ata separate location while either waiting for repair or disposal.

Measurement of the extent of vehicle damage may be subject to somevariation. However, typically, the variation of results of a damage-databased reconstruction may mainly be due to differences in thereconstruction and interpretation techniques rather than to themeasurement devices used.

Measurements and vehicle specifications may be used as inputs to theequation that permit application of various physical laws to theaccident reconstruction. Specifications may include the mass of thevehicles. Measurements may include the geometry of the collision.Determining the geometry of the collision may require the dimensions ofthe vehicles as inputs.

Additional specifications that may be used in a reconstruction mayinclude roadway friction coefficients, wheel drag, and wheel steer,which may be used primarily for trajectory-based analysis. The frictioncoefficient, drag, and steer on the vehicle as it travels from impact torest may be used to approximate the kinetic energy dissipated in atrajectory-based analysis.

The two general techniques for accident reconstruction includedamage-based and trajectory-based methods. Damage-based methodstypically reconstruct accidents based on damage to vehicles withoutapplying accident scene data. Damage-based only reconstructiontechniques generally assume a virtual linear relationship between theimpact speed changes versus residual or static crush. The relationshipis virtual since it involves equating the crush energy dissipated duringthe dynamic crushing of the vehicles to the residual or static crush.Damage-based reconstruction techniques may use a single full-scale crashtest data point for a given vehicle combined with an assumptionregarding a “no-damage” intercept to calculate custom-fittedcoefficients for use in individual case reconstructions. Such anassumption may generally be recognized as a crude first-approximationprocedure. Alternatively, some damage-based techniques may use multiplecrash tests on an individual vehicle to create multiple data points fora given vehicle.

A trajectory-based analysis may directly provide estimates of the impactspeed changes in the form of the differences between impact andseparation velocities for each vehicle. The general concept or principleof a trajectory-based reconstruction may be the conservation ofmomentum. The conservation of momentum, which is based on Newton'ssecond and third laws, is that the total momentum of an isolated systemof masses remains constant. The conservation of momentum principle mayserve as the theoretical basis for reconstruction of impact speeds invehicle-to-vehicle collisions. The principal stipulates that the systemmomentum preceding a collision and the system momentum after acollision, for example at separation, are conserved in the absence ofexternal forces. Therefore, if the individual speeds and directions ofmotion for each of the two vehicles in a collision to travel fromseparation to rest can be determined, then the direction and magnitudeof this system momentum may be used to determine the magnitudes anddirections of the velocities that may have existed prior to thecollision, which are the impact velocities. Generally, the magnitude ofexternal forces produced by the tires and other possible sources such asgouging and scraping of vehicle components on the ground during thecollision may be considered small when compared to the magnitude of theforces of the collision. However, it may be necessary to consider suchexternal forces for a comprehensive accident reconstruction.

Analyzing the total energy dissipated as the vehicles travel fromseparation to their positions of rest may be important for preparing acomprehensive trajectory-based reconstruction of a collision. Whenvehicles separate after a collision, they may move to rest positionsagainst resistance forces produced primarily by tire-to-ground friction.Secondary contacts, which may occur with roadside obstacles and/orterrain features, may play significant roles in the dissipation ofkinetic energy and may also produce redirection of the spinouttrajectories.

In another embodiment, a graphical user interface like that illustratedin FIGS. 42 to 54 may be combined with a credibility assessment methodto create a reliable accident description. The details relevant to theaccident such as those described herein may be tested by a credibilityassessment method such as the accident reconstruction software asdescribed herein. The most credible version of the details may then becombined into a single, reliable version of an accident description.

Further Improvements

FIG. 56 illustrates a screen shot of another embodiment of a graphicaluser interface for a system for estimating liability in a vehicleaccident. Control frame 5601 may provide access to basic controls forthe application. Controls frame 5601 may include a number of windowselection buttons (e.g., buttons 5603, 5605, 5607, 5609, 5611, and5613). Each frame selection button may cause a data display frame 5619to display different data. A user may select the frame selection buttonsafter entering a claim number in free form entry text box 5615 andselecting the “Get Claim” push button 5617. FIG. 56 also includesaccessories frame 5621. Accessories frame 5621 may include a number offrame selection buttons (e.g., 5623, 5625, 5627, 5629, 5631, and 5633).For example, Speed Calc button 5627 may allow a user to perform speed,time, and distance calculations relating to an accident. In addition,Distance Calc button 5629 may allow a user to estimate a distance fromthe front of a vehicle to the start of a first lane of an intersection.

FIG. 57 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of claim data frame5701 that is similar to FIG. 42. Claim data frame 5701 may be accessedby selecting the Claim Data frame selection button 5605 in FIG. 56. Theclaim data window may include several data frames that include an FNOL(first notice of loss) frame, a Parties frame, and an AdditionalInformation frame. A data frame in the claim data window may be viewedby selecting the appropriate tab, 5703, 5705, or 5707. For example, theFNOL frame 5709 may be viewed by selecting FNOL tab 5703. FNOL frame5703 includes free form entry text boxes for entering informationrelating to the accident. For example, the information shown in the FNOLdata frame is similar to that shown in Claim Data frame 4225 in FIG. 42.

FIG. 58 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Claim Data frame5701, similar to FIG. 45, which depicts Parties frame 5801. The Partiesframe may be viewed by selecting Parties tab 5705 in FIG. 57. TheParties frame includes a number of free form entry text boxes forentering information concerning parties involved in an accident. Theinformation is similar to that that shown in data display frame 4250 inFIG. 45. The Parties frame also includes Add Party Selection button5803. When a user selects the Add Party Selection button, Add Partypop-up window 5901 depicted in FIG. 59 may be displayed. The Add Partypop-up window may include additional parties 5903 that a user may add tothe liability analysis. The additional parties may include, for example,a claimant passenger, an insured passenger, a witness, or a namedinsured. A user may select one or more additional parties and select OKbutton 5905 to add the one or more parties. If a user selects Cancelbutton 5907, no parties may be added.

FIG. 60 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Claim Data frame5701, which depicts Additional Information frame 6001. The AdditionalInformation frame may be viewed by selecting Additional Information tab5707. As described in reference to FIG. 44, Additional information frame6001 may allow the user to enter a description of the accident in afree-form text entry box. The user may enter text by selecting Edit pushbutton 6003.

FIG. 61 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Accident Infowindow 6101. Accident Info window 6001 allows users to enter informationrelating to roadway configuration, accident type, and impact points.Accident Info window 6101 may be accessed by selecting frame selectionbutton 5607 in FIG. 56. Accident Info window 6101 may include dataframes such as an Accident/Roadway data frame and an Impact Points dataframe. Accident/Roadway data frame 6103 may be accessed by selectingAccident/Roadway tab 6105. Data frame 6103 may include several windowsfor viewing and selecting accident types and roadway configurations fora claimant and an insured. In one embodiment, window 6109 may allow auser to select an accident type. Window 6109 may include graphicalimages of accident type diagrams depicted in FIG. 4. A user may selectone of the graphical images 6111 in window 6109 that corresponds to adesired accident type.

In some embodiments, window 6113 may allow a user to associate theclaimant and insured with the vehicles in the accident types depicted inwindow 6109. Two graphical images of the selected accident type may bedisplayed in window 6113. One of the graphical images may include onearrow or diagram representing a vehicle labeled as a claimant and theother arrow or diagram labeled as an insured. The other graphical imagesmay have the labels reversed. For example, accident type 1 displayed asimage 6115 is the selected accident type in FIG. 61. Images 6117 and6119 of accident type 1 with labeled arrows are displayed in window6113. The user may then select one of the images. Graphical image 6121of the selected accident type may be displayed in window 6123.

In an embodiment, window 6125 may allow a user to select a roadwayconfiguration. Window 6125 may include graphical images of roadwayconfiguration diagrams depicted in FIG. 5. A user may select one of thegraphical images 6127 in window 6125 that corresponds to a roadwayconfiguration. Graphical image 6129 of the selected roadwayconfiguration may be displayed in window 6131.

FIG. 62 illustrates a screen shot of impact points data frame 6201 thatis similar to FIG. 49. Impact points data frame 6201 may be accessed byselecting Impact Points tab 6107. Data frame 6201 may include drop downmenus (e.g., 6203, 6205, 6207) for selecting the number and types ofvehicles involved in an accident. FIG. 62 may also include graphicalimages 6211 and 6215 for selecting impact points of the insured andclaimant vehicles. Graphical images 6211 and 6215 may include impactpoints labeled in a manner similar to FIG. 8 a. Drop down menus 6209 and6213 may allow a user to select the impact points for the insured andthe claimant.

A number of details relating to an accident may be important forassessing liability in an accident. Information relating to an accidentis typically collected during the course of an accident investigation.An insurance adjuster may obtain information relating to an accidentfrom a number of sources. An embodiment of a method of estimatingliability for an accident using a computer system may include generatingone or more questions relating to an accident. A user may provide one ormore sets of answers corresponding to the one or more questions. A setof answers may include answers to a question obtained from one or moresources. For example, the one or more sources may include an insuranceadjuster or user, an insured, a claimant, witnesses, passengers, apolice report, physical evidence, a weather report, and an accidentreconstruction report. The method may further include estimating theeffect of at least one factor on liability using at least one answer.

In one embodiment, a question may be generated on one or more topicsrelating to the accident. For example, topics may include trafficcontrol, right of way, environment, roadway characteristics, driveraction, driver condition, and vehicle equipment. A user may select ananswer from the set of answers obtained from the one or more sources. Inan embodiment, selecting an answer from the set of answers may includeidentifying inconsistencies in the answers obtained from two or moresources and selecting the most reliable answer. The selected answer maycorrespond to one of the sources that supplied the answer. In oneembodiment, the user may select the answer supplied by the user.

FIG. 63 a illustrates an embodiment of Investigation window 6301 thatmay be displayed if a user selects Investigation frame selection button5609 in controls frame 5601. FIG. 63 may include pull down menu 6303 forselecting the source from which information is obtained. The source fromwhich information is obtained may be referred to as the “version party.”A “subject party” refers to the party about which a question is asked. Asubject party may be either the insured or the claimant. For example, aninsured is the subject party in a question that asks whether the insuredconsumed alcohol prior to an accident. A subject party passenger refersto a passenger in the vehicle of a subject party. The Topic selectionarea 6305 may include a list of topics relating to the accident. A usermay select a topic to view a list of questions relating to the topic. Inone embodiment, an indicator, for example, indicator 6307, may appearadjacent to the text of a topic in area 6305 when all answers have beenprovided to the questions corresponding to the topic.

In one embodiment, window 6301 includes question and answer area 6309for displaying questions and entering answers. Column 6311 includesquestions corresponding to topics listed in area 6305. For example,questions 6313 relating to Roadway Details are listed under label 6315.Roadway Details include roadway characteristics that are discussedherein. In one embodiment, an indicator such as indicator 6317 mayappear adjacent to a question to indicate that an answer has not beenprovided for a question. Area 6309 may further include columns 6319,6321, and 6323 for entering answers obtained from sources to thequestions in column 6311. For example, a user may select column 6319 toenter answers to questions obtained from the insured. Area 6309 mayinclude row 6325 for indicating the status of the investigation withrespect to a particular source. For example, if an adjuster has obtainedall answers that a source is able to provide, the investigation iscomplete with respect to that source. However, if an adjuster may beable to obtain additional answers from a source, then the investigationmay be in progress. In an embodiment, an indicator such as indicator6327 may appear in a column to indicate that one or more answers havenot been obtained from a source. Answers to questions may be enteredinto data entry fields 6329. Data entry fields 6329 may be free formentry text boxes. Alternatively, data entry fields 6329 may be pull downmenus that may include two or more answers to a question. In someembodiments, a user may be inhibited from entering an answer in a dataentry field for a particular question and source, for example, dataentry fields 6331. “N/A” appears in data entry fields 6331 to indicatethat a user may not enter an answer.

In certain embodiments, at least one answer to a question may beassociated with a set of additional questions. The set of additionalquestions may be generated by the computer system when the at least oneanswer is selected by a user. The user may then provide a set of answerscorresponding to the set of additional questions to the computer system.The method may further include using at least one answer to estimate theeffect of a factor on liability in the accident.

In some embodiments, the set of additional questions generated maydepend on the source of the answer. For example, the set of additionalquestions generated when the version party is the same as the subjectparty may be different from the additional questions generated when theversion party is not the same as the subject party.

FIG. 63 b is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment of InvestigationWindow 6301. In FIG. 63 b, Column 6319 is selected for answeringquestions obtained from the insured. The screenshot also illustratesanswering questions relating to the alcohol topic under label 6335.Question 6339, “INSD consumed alcohol?” asks the insured whether he/sheconsumed alcohol prior to the accident. Pull down menu 6341 illustratesthe set of answers to question 6339: “Yes”, “No”, and “Unknown.”

FIG. 63 c is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment of InvestigationWindow 6301 with an answer to question 6339 selected. Data entry field6343 illustrates that “Yes” is the selected answer. The answer “Yes” toquestion 6339 is associated with a set of additional questions. Set ofadditional questions 6345 are generated under question 6339 as shown inFIG. 63 c.

FIG. 63 d is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment of InvestigationWindow 6301 with answers to some of the set of additional questions 6345selected. For example, data entry field 6349 illustrates that “No” isthe selected answer for question 6347. The answer “No” to question 6347is associated with set of additional questions 6351, which are generatedin response to the selected answer.

FIG. 63 e is a screenshot that depicts an embodiment of InvestigationWindow 6301. FIG. 63 e depicts a selected answer in data entry field6355, “Yes” to question 6353, “INSD administered BAC test?.” Theselected answer “Yes” is associated with additional question 6357,“INSD's BAC Result”), that was generated due to the selection of “Yes.”An answer of “0.02” depicted in data entry field 6359 is selected forquestion 6357. The selected answer “0.02” did not generate additionalquestions.

The set of additional questions generated by selecting answers may bedepicted by a flow chart. FIG. 63 f depicts a flow chart of thequestions generated relating to the Alcohol topic. Each of the steps inthe flow chart represents a question that may be displayed. Step 6361represents the “Alcohol Consumed” question. “VP”, which refers toversion party, corresponds to the sources that may be asked a particularquestion. The one or more sources may include, for example, subjectparty (SP), subject party passenger (SPP), police report (PR), and otherparty (OP). Other party refers to the party other than the subject partythat is involved in an accident. For example, if the version party isthe insured, the other party is the claimant. The “Alcohol Consumed”question asks whether a subject party consumed alcohol prior to anaccident. Step 6361 indicates that “Alcohol Consumed” may be asked ofall sources: SP, SPP, PR, and OP. If the answer to the “AlcoholConsumed” question is “No”, then no further questions are generated, asshown at step 6399. If the answer to the “Alcohol Consumed” question is“Yes”, then a set of additional questions may be generated, as shown bysteps, 6363, 6379, 6381, 6385, 6387, 6389, 6391, 6393, 6395, and 6397.The questions at steps 6363, 6365, 6369, and 6375 may be generated andasked of all sources.

If the selected answer to the question in step 6363, “Cited forimpairment”, is “Yes”, then no further questions are generated and a 100percent shift in liability to the subject party may be made, as shown bystep 6367. If the selected answer is “No”, then step 6365 indicates thatthe question “Other Indication of Impairment” may be asked of allsources. If the selected answer the question is “No”, then a high shiftin liability is made to the subject party, a shown by step 6371. If theanswer to the question is “Yes”, then step 6369 illustrates that thequestion of what “Other Indication of Impairment” was “Based On” may begenerated. Step 6373 indicates that a 70 percent shift in liability maybe made to the subject party if the other indication of impairment wasbased on BAC (blood alcohol content). If the other indication ofimpairment was based on “Statements or Other”, then the version party isasked to “Describe Statements/Other” as shown by step 6375. Step 6377indicates that a 70 percent shift in liability may then be made to thesubject party.

Additionally, steps 6379, 6381, 6385, 6389, 6393, and 6397 includequestions that are generated if the selected answer to the “AlcoholConsumed” question is “Yes.” Step 6379 indicates that all sources may beasked if a “Field Sobriety Test was Administered.” Step 6381 indicatesthat all sources may be asked if a “BAC Test was Administered.” If theselected answer is “Yes”, then the “BAC Result” question is generatedfor the subject party, police report, and other source. Step 6385indicates that the question “In What Time Period” was “Alcohol Consumed”is generated for the subject party, subject party passenger, policereport, and other source. Step 6387 indicates that the question of theamount and type of alcohol consumed is generated for the subject party,subject party passenger, police report, and other source. Step 6389indicates that the question regarding the time since alcohol wasconsumed is generated for the subject party, subject party passenger,police report, and other source. Step 6391 indicates that the questionof where the alcohol was acquired is generated for the subject party,subject party passenger, police report, and other source. Step 6393indicates that a question of where the alcohol was consumed is generatedfor the subject party, subject party passenger, police report, and othersource. Step 6395 indicates that the weight of the subject party isasked of the subject party, police report, and the other source. Step6397 indicates that the question of who served the alcohol is asked ofthe subject party, subject party passenger, police report, and the othersource.

FIG. 64 illustrates an embodiment of Resolution window 6401 that may bedisplayed if a user selects Investigation frame selection button 5611 incontrols frame 5601. A user may use Window 6401 to select an answer fromthe set of answers provided by two or more sources for use in estimatingliability in an accident. Data entry field 6402 may be a pull down menuthat includes answers provided by the sources. A user may resolveinconsistencies in a set of answers provided by the sources. Forexample, a user may select one of the answers. Window 6401 may includecolumn 6403, entitled “Final”, that includes answers to be used forestimating liability. Inconsistencies between answers from differentsources may be resolved in column 6403. For example, as illustrated bydata fields 6405, 6407, and 6409, the sources corresponding to columns6411 and 6415 have selected answers inconsistent with the selectedanswer of the source in column 6413 for question 6417. Indicator 6419indicates the presence of an inconsistency among the answers to question6417. Data entry field 6402 indicates that the selected answer toquestion 6417 for use in estimating liability is “Green Light.” In someembodiments, a user may provide an answer for use in estimatingliability different from the answers provided by the sources.

FIG. 65 a illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Report window6501. Report window 6501 may be accessed by selecting Report frameselection button 5611 in FIG. 56. The Report window may include severaldata frames such as Consultation Report frame and Settlement info.frame. A data frame in the Report window may be viewed by selecting anappropriate tab. For example, Consultation Report frame 6507 may bedisplayed by selecting tab 6505. Frame 6507 may include a summary ofinformation relating to the accident and liability assessment. Thesummary may include claim data, accident information, right of way, andinformation obtained from the accident investigation depicted in FIGS.63 a-e. The summary may also include recommended ranges of liability forthe insured and claimant.

In addition, the summary may include a list of questions fromInvestigation Window 6301 that have conflicting answers, unansweredquestion, and unknown questions. An “unknown question” is a questionthat was not answered in the Investigation window because the answer wasnot known by the source interviewed. FIG. 65 b depicts an embodiment ofa report that includes a list of questions that have conflicting answersfrom sources. Questions that have conflicting answers are listed incolumn 6511. Column 6513 and 6515 indicate whether a conflict has beenresolved or unresolved. Conflicts may be resolved in column 6403 in FIG.64. Indicator 6517 in column 6513 indicates that question 6519 has beenresolved.

FIG. 65 c depicts a table with unanswered and unknown questions forseveral sources. Column 6521 includes a list of questions withunanswered and unknown questions for one or more sources. Columns 6523,6525, 6527, and 6529 correspond to columns 6403, 6411, 6413, and 6415 inFIG. 64. For example, indicator 6531 indicates that question 6535 wasunanswered from the source corresponding to column 6529. Additionally,indicator 6533 indicates that question 6537 is an unknown question forthe source corresponding to column 6525.

FIG. 66 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Report window 6501with Settlement Info. data frame 6601 displayed. Settlement Info. dataframe 6601 may be displayed by selecting tab 6509. Frame 6601 may beused to enter information relating to a settlement between a claimantand an insured. Frame 6601 may include pull down menu 6603 for selectinga claim study type. The liability of the insured in a settlement may beentered into free form entry text box 6605. In another embodiment, adollar amount of a settlement for one or more types of settlement typesmay be entered. As shown by text 6607, settlement types may include, butare not limited to, bodily injury, property damage, uninsured motorist,and under insured motorist. Settlement amounts for the one or moresettlement types may be entered in free form entry text boxes 6609. Thedate of the settlement of the one or more settlement types may beentered into pull down menus 6611.

FIG. 67 is an illustration of a screen shot of Legal Reference window6700 which may be displayed by selecting frame selection button 5625 inFIG. 56. Legal Reference window 6700 allows a user to view statutesrelating to liability assessment by state. A state may be selected usingpull down menu 6703. The type of statute may be selected using pull downmenu 6705. After selecting the state and type of statute a user mayselect push button 6707 to display the state statute of interest. Thestatute is displayed in frame 6701. A user may advance through theselected statute by selecting push button 6711. Alternatively, the usermay display a previous frame of the selected statute by selecting pushbutton 6713. A user may close Legal Reference window 6700 by selectingpush button 6709.

FIG. 68 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment ofSpeed/Time/Distance Calculator window 6800 which may be displayed byselecting frame selection button 5627. Window 6800 may include textboxes 6801 for speed in miles per hour, 6803 for travel distance infeet/sec, 6805 for braking distance for autos in feet, 6807 distancetraveled during driver reaction time in feet, 6809 for stopping distancefor autos in feet, 6811 for braking distance for trucks in feet, and6813 for stopping distance for trucks in feet including reaction time.In one embodiment, text box 6801 may be a text entry box and text boxes6803, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6811, and 6813 may be disabled or read-only.Values in text boxes 6803, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6811, and 6813 may becalculated using the value in text box 6801. In other embodiments, oneof the text boxes 6803, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6811, or 6813 may be textentry boxes and the values in the other text boxes including text box6801 may be calculated from the value in the text entry box.

In one embodiment, window 6800 may include increment/decrement bar 6815.A user may drag bar 6815 downward to increment the speed in text box6801 or drag the bar upward to decrement the speed in text box 6801. Thevalues in text boxes 6803, 6805, 6807, 6809, 6811, and 6813 may changein response to an increment or decrement in speed. A user may closewindow 6800 by selecting push button 6817.

FIG. 69 illustrates a screen shot of Distance Calculator window 6900according to one embodiment. Window 6900 may be displayed by selectingframe selection button 5629. Window 6900 may include graphical image6901 that may depict an approximate representation of an accident scene.Window 6900 may be used to estimate a distance from the front of avehicle at or near an intersection to the start of the firstintersecting lane. For example, for a vehicle with its front at stopline 6903, window 6900 may calculate distance 6905. Image 6901 mayinclude stop line 6903, intersecting stop line 6905, crosswalk 6909,intersecting crosswalk 6907, shoulder 6911, intersecting shoulder 6913,intersecting bicycle/multi-use lane 6915, lane 6917, intersecting lane6919, and sidewalk 6921.

In one embodiment, the distance from the front of a vehicle to the startof a first intersecting lane may be determined for several types ofintersections. For example, in FIG. 69, a user may select 6923 one offour types of intersections. A graphical image of the selectedintersection may be displayed. For example, “Large intersection withcrosswalk” is selected in FIG. 69 and is displayed as graphical image6901. As FIG. 69 shows, a “Small intersection with crosswalk,” a “Smallintersection without crosswalk,” and “Uncontrolled intersection” may beselected. In some embodiments, other types of intersections may beselected.

In certain embodiments, calculation of the distance from the front of avehicle to the start of the first intersecting lane may require input ofone or more intersection parameters. Intersection parameters mayinclude, but are not limited to, a distance from the stop position to astop line, a distance from a stop position to a sidewalk, a distancefrom a stop line to a crosswalk, a width of a crosswalk, a width of asidewalk, a distance from a stop line to an intersecting shoulder, adistance from a crosswalk to an intersecting shoulder, a distance from asidewalk to an intersecting shoulder, a width of an intersectingshoulder, and a width of an intersecting bike/multi-use lane. FIG. 69includes free form entry text boxes 6925 for entering intersectionparameters for use in calculating the distance from the front of avehicle to the start of the first intersecting lane. One or more of thefree form entry text boxes for the intersection parameters may bedisabled if the corresponding intersection parameters may not berelevant to the type of intersection selected. For example, a distancefrom a stop position to sidewalk is not relevant for a largeintersection with a crosswalk, therefore, text entry box 6927 isdisabled. When the user enters the relevant intersection parameters intofree form entry text boxes, the distance from the front of a vehicle tothe start of the first intersecting lane may be calculated. The distancemay be displayed in text box 6929. Window 6900 may be closed byselecting push button 6931.

In certain embodiments, a graphical image of an accident scene may bedepicted. The graphical image may be used as a visual aid in liabilityassessment. For example, the graphical image may be used in answeringquestions relating to roadway details or roadway characteristics inInvestigation window 6501 shown in FIG. 65. In an embodiment, theroadway details or roadway characteristics may be used in a method ofassessing liability using the speed and time and distance traveled byvehicles in an accident as depicted by the flow chart in FIG. 72. Agraphical image may correspond to a particular combination of accidenttype and roadway configuration. FIG. 70 illustrates a screen shot of anembodiment of Accident Scene window 7000 for accident type 3 from FIG. 4and roadway configuration B from accident type 5. Accident Scene window7000 may be accessed by selecting frame selection button 5631 in FIG.56. Accident Scene window 7000 may provide a user with an approximaterepresentation of an accident scene corresponding to an accident typeand roadway configuration combination. In one embodiment, Accident Scenewindow 7000 may depict diagrams of the insured and the claimant'svehicles and their trajectories. For example, diagram 7001 may representclaimant's vehicle and trajectory 7003 may correspond to the trajectoryof the claimant vehicle. Similarly, diagram 7005 may represent aninsured's vehicle and trajectory 7007 may represent the trajectory ofthe insured's vehicle. In addition, window 7000 may also include anumber of roadway characteristics that may be common in the particularaccident type and roadway configuration combination. For example, window7000 depicts lanes 7009, stop line 7011, median 7013, sidewalk 7015,shoulder 7017, and multi-use lane 7019 may be depicted in window 7000

FIG. 71 illustrates a screen shot of an embodiment of Comments Facilitywindow 7100. Comments Facility window 7100 may be accessed by selectingframe selection button 5633 in FIG. 56. In an embodiment, window 7100may allow a user to enter comments relating to one or more topicsrelating to the accident and/or liability assessment. Select Topic textbox 7101 may include a list of topics that correspond to comments thathave previously been entered by a user. Add Topic push button 7103 mayallow a user to create a new topic for comments. In addition, a user mayselect a comment from the list in text box 7101 to view the comments ona selected topic. Comments text box 7105 may display previously enteredcomments on a topic. To view a previously entered comment on a topic, auser may select View Details push button 7107. Alternatively, text box7105 may be used to enter comments on a new topic or add to comments onan existing topic. A user may enter comments by selecting Add Commentspush button 7109.

In one embodiment, the speed, time, and distance of vehicles involved inan accident may be used to assess the liability of a vehicle in anaccident. For example, analysis of the trajectories of the vehicles mayindicate whether a vehicle may have avoided an accident. In oneembodiment, a method of using a computer system for assessing liabilityin a vehicle accident may include estimating a theoretical path of areference vehicle. A “reference” or “timing” vehicle refers to a vehiclethat is used to set one or more times during an accident. The method mayalso include estimating a theoretical path of a reacting vehicle. The“reacting” vehicle reacts to the danger of an accident with thereference vehicle. The opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid theaccident may then be assessed. The method may further include assessinga contribution to liability to the reacting vehicle based on theopportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident.

An embodiment of a method of assessing liability using the speed, time,and distance of vehicles in an accident is depicted by the flow chart inFIG. 72. In step 7201, the method may include selecting a referencevehicle. The one or more times that the reference vehicle is used to setmay include the starting time of the accident, a perception time, andthe total time of the accident. At step 7203, theoretical paths of thevehicles in the accident may be estimated. A theoretical path for avehicle may be estimated from a starting point of the vehicle and anintended end position of the vehicle. An intended end position refers tothe position of a vehicle, past the location of the accident, that thevehicle may have been at had the accident not occurred. In someembodiments, a theoretical path may be approximated by a straight linefor a vehicle traveling in substantially a straight trajectory. In otherembodiments, a theoretical path may be approximated by a curve, such asan ellipse, for a turning vehicle. In addition, a collision area may beestimated using the theoretical paths of the vehicles at step 7205. A“collision area” refers to an area of the roadway where there is a highprobability that vehicles may collide. The collision area includespositions that the reference vehicle and reacting vehicle are likely tooccupy at impact.

In an embodiment, a perception time for a reference vehicle may beestimated at step 7207. A “perception time” may refer to a time for areference vehicle to travel from a perception point to a collision area.A “perception point” is the point on the trajectory of the referencevehicle at which the reacting vehicle should first notice danger. Atstep 7209, a location of the reacting vehicle may be estimated using theperception point and the perception time. A time for the referencevehicle to clear the collision area starting from the location of thecollision may then be estimated at step 7211. At step 7213, a time for areacting vehicle to reach the collision area using the time for thereference vehicle to clear the collision area may be estimated. At step7215, an opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid the accident maybe assessed. In addition, an effect on liability of the opportunity ofthe reacting vehicle to avoid the accident may be assessed at step 7217.

FIG. 73 depicts an illustration of intersection 7300 that includesintersection box 7301 with a coordinate system. Origin 7303 is locatedat the lower left hand corner of intersection box 7301. In oneembodiment, an intersection box may be defined by the outer edges of theoutermost lanes. The coordinate of any point in the intersection orroadways may be referred to by the name of the point followed by “x” or“y.” Roadway 7305 may include one or more lanes 7307. Lanes may bespecified in one half lane increments. For example, lane 1 may be in themiddle of lane 7313 and 1.5 may be on the line separating lane 7313 andlane 7315. A roadway may also include median 7309 that separates traffictraveling in opposite directions. The roadway may also include stoplines 7311 that delineate a safe location for a vehicle to stop beforethe intersection.

In several of the accident types shown in FIG. 4, one of the vehicles,A, is traveling in a straight trajectory and another vehicle, B, isturning and traveling in a curved trajectory. As used herein, vehicle Amay be referred to as the “straight vehicle” and vehicle B may bereferred to as the “turning vehicle.” FIG. 74 illustrates thetrajectories of a straight vehicle and a turning vehicle in an accidentthat correspond to accident type 3 in FIG. 4. Diagram 7401 representsvehicle A with a straight trajectory at a position prior to a collisiontraveling in collision lane 7427. As used herein, a “collision lane” isthe lane occupied by the straight vehicle and in which the vehiclescollide. Diagram 7403 represents vehicle A at the position of acollision. Diagram 7405 represents vehicle A in a position it may haveoccupied had the collision not occurred. Diagram 7405 may represent anintended end position of vehicle A. Diagram 7407 represents a vehicle Bat a position prior to a collision. Diagram 7409 represents vehicle B atthe position of the collision. Diagram 7411 represents vehicle B in aposition it may have occupied had the collision not occurred. Diagram7411 may represent an intended end position of vehicle B.

In some embodiments, the trajectory of at least one point on a vehiclemay represent the path of the vehicle. Vehicle points may correspond toimpact points as shown in FIG. 8 a. For example, diagram 7407 includesvehicle point 7413 with trajectory 7415, vehicle point 7417 withtrajectory 7419, and vehicle point 7421 with trajectory 7423. In certainembodiments, trajectories of vehicle points on vehicle B may be used todefine collision area 7425. Vehicle point 7421 may correspond to thecollision point of the turning vehicle and the straight vehicle.

In an embodiment, speed, time, and distance analysis of an accident forthe purpose of liability assessment may be applied to at least one ofthe accident types illustrated in FIG. 4. FIGS. 75 a-g illustrateapplication of speed, time, and distance analysis of vehicles in anaccident for several accident types. FIGS. 75 a-c represent accidenttypes in which vehicle B is crossing traffic. FIGS. 75 d-g representaccident types in which vehicle B is entering traffic. FIG. 75 aillustrates accident type 2 from FIG. 4. Diagram 7501 represents vehicleB prior to the collision. The path of vehicle B is depicted bytrajectory 7505. Diagram 7503 represents vehicle B in an intended endposition. Similarly, diagram 7507 represents vehicle A prior to acollision. Diagram 7509 represents vehicle A in an intended endposition. Diagram 7511 represents the collision area.

FIG. 75 b illustrates accident type 3 from FIG. 4. Diagram 7513represents turning vehicle B prior to the collision. The path of vehicleB is depicted by trajectory 7517. Diagram 7515 represents turningvehicle B in an intended end position. Similarly, diagram 7519represents vehicle A prior to a collision. Diagram 7521 representsvehicle A in an intended end position. Diagram 7523 represents thecollision area.

FIG. 75 c illustrates accident type 17 from FIG. 4. Diagram 7547represents vehicle B prior to the collision. The path of vehicle B isdepicted by trajectory 7551. Diagram 7549 represents B in an intendedend position. Similarly, diagram 7553 represents vehicle A prior to acollision. Diagram 7555 represents vehicle A in an intended endposition. Diagram 7557 represents the collision area.

FIGS. 75 d and 75 e illustrate embodiments of accident type 4 from FIG.4. FIG. 75 d depicts a vehicle B crossing traffic into a lane differentfrom a vehicle A in traffic. Alternatively, FIG. 75 e depicts a vehicleB entering traffic into the same lane as a vehicle A in traffic. Diagram7525 represents vehicle B prior to the collision. The path of vehicle Bis depicted by trajectory 7529. Diagram 7527 represents turning vehicleB in an intended end position. Similarly, diagram 7531 representsvehicle A prior to a collision. Diagram 7533 represents vehicle A in anintended end position. Diagram 7535 represents the collision area. Inthe case of FIGS. 75 e and 75 g, the collision area may not terminate onthe right side because the intended end position of vehicle B does notclear the collision lane.

FIG. 75 f and 75 g illustrate embodiments of accident type 5 from FIG.4. FIG. 75 f depicts a vehicle B crossing traffic into a lane differentfrom a vehicle A in traffic. Alternatively, FIG. 75 g depicts a vehicleB entering traffic into the same lane as a vehicle A in traffic. Diagram7537 represents vehicle B prior to the collision. The path of vehicle Bis depicted by trajectory 7541. Diagram 7539 represents vehicle B in anintended end position. Similarly, diagram 7543 represents a vehicle Aprior to a collision. Diagram 7545 represents vehicle A in an intendedend position. Diagram 7547 represents the collision area.

An embodiment of the method depicted in FIG. 72 may include selecting7201 a reference vehicle. In one embodiment, a reference vehicle may beselected from the vehicles involved in an accident. The referencevehicle may be vehicle A in accident types 2, 3, 4, and 5 shown in FIG.4. Alternatively, the reference vehicle may be vehicle B in accidenttypes 2, 3, 4, and 5 shown in FIG. 4. The starting time for trajectoryanalysis may be determined, for example, using a landmark, such as astop line, that the reference vehicle passes.

In some embodiments, the selection of the reference vehicle may bedetermined by the reaction of a vehicle to the danger of a collision.For example, if the reaction of either vehicle A or vehicle B, but notboth, is braking from a constant rate of speed or braking fromaccelerating, then the vehicle that is not braking may be the referencevehicle. Alternatively, if the reaction of both vehicle A and vehicle Bis continuing from a constant rate of speed or continuing fromaccelerating and the right of way is known, the vehicle that does nothave the right of way may be the reference vehicle.

In one embodiment, speed, time and distance analysis may includeestimating 7203 the theoretical paths of the vehicles in the accident.For example, the theoretical paths of vehicle A and vehicle B in theaccident type diagrams of FIG. 4 may be estimated. A flow chartillustrating a method for estimating the theoretical paths of vehiclesis shown in FIG. 76 a. At step 7601, the coordinates of the start pointof at least one point on vehicles A and B may be estimated. Thecoordinates of the intended end position of at least one point on thevehicles may be estimated at step 7603. The method may further includedetermining mathematical relationships for the theoretical paths of aleast one point on at least one of the vehicles using the start pointand intended end positions.

In an embodiment, the (x, y) coordinate of at least one point on avehicle at the start point and intended end positions may be estimated.The (x, y) coordinate of at least one point and the orientation of thevehicle may then be used to estimate the coordinates of any other pointon the vehicle. The orientation of a vehicle in relation to an origin,for example, origin 7303 in FIG. 73, may be depend on the accident type.FIG. 76 b depicts vehicle orientation in relation to an origin. Diagram7609 corresponds to the orientation at the start point of vehicle B foraccident types 3, 5, and 17. Arrows 7619 indicate the direction oftravel of the vehicle. Points 7617 correspond to impact point 812 fromFIG. 8 a for each diagram. Diagram 7611 corresponds to the orientationat the start point of vehicle A for all of the accident typesillustrated in FIG. 4. Diagram 7613 corresponds to the orientation atthe start point of vehicle B for accident type 4. Diagram 7615corresponds to the orientation at the start point of vehicle B foraccident type 2.

In certain embodiments, the start point and intended end positions ofvehicles in an accident may depend upon the accident type, the roadwaytype, roadway characteristics, the position of a vehicle on the roadway,and driver action or action of a vehicle characteristics. Table 1includes a list of roadway characteristics that may be used in speed,time, and distance analysis of vehicles in an accident according to oneembodiment. Table 1 also lists possible values for the roadwaycharacteristics.

TABLE 1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS AND POSSIBLE VALUES ROADWAYCHARACTERISTIC POSSIBLE VALUES A Speed Limit Integer Unknown B SpeedLimit Integer Unknown A Total Lanes Integer Unknown B Total LanesInteger Unknown Intersecting Road Total Integer Lanes Unknown A LaneWidth Narrow (10 feet or less) Average (11 to 13 feet) Wide (14 feet ormore) Unknown B Lane Width Narrow (10 feet or less) Average (11 to 13feet) Wide (14 feet or more) Unknown Originating Lane Width Narrow (10feet or less) Average (11 to 13 feet) Wide (14 feet or more) UnknownIntersecting Lane Narrow (10 feet or less) Width Average (11 to 13 feet)Wide (14 feet or more) Unknown A Median Width None Small (1 to 5 feet)Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21 feet or more)Size Unknown Presence Unknown B Median Width None Small (1 to 5 feet)Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21 feet or more)Size Unknown Presence Unknown Originating Median None Width Small (1 to5 feet) Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21 feet ormore) Size Unknown Presence Unknown Intersecting Median None Width Small(1 to 5 feet) Narrow (6 to 10 feet) Average (11 to 20 feet) Wide (21feet or more) Size Unknown Presence Unknown A Median After Lane #Integer Unknown B Median After Lane # Integer Unknown Intersecting RoadInteger Median After Lane # Unknown Originating Road Integer MedianAfter Lane # Unknown A Inside Shoulder None Width Narrow (2 to 3 feet)Standard (4 feet or more) Size Unknown Presence Unknown B InsideShoulder None Width Narrow (2 to 3 feet) Standard (4 feet or more) SizeUnknown Presence Unknown Originating Inside None Shoulder Width Narrow(2 to 3 feet) Standard (4 feet or more) Size Unknown Presence UnknownIntersecting Road None Inside Shoulder Width Narrow (2 to 3 feet)Standard (4 feet or more) Size Unknown Presence Unknown A Center TurnLane Yes No Unknown B Center Turn Lane Yes No Unknown Originating CenterYes Turn Lane No Unknown Intersecting Center Yes Turn Lane No Unknown ASlope Grade None Uphill Slight (4% or less) Uphill Moderate (5% to 10%)Uphill Steep (10% or more) Downhill Slight (4% or less) DownhillModerate (5% to 9%) Downhill Steep (10% or more) Unknown B Slope GradeNone Uphill Slight (4% or less) Uphill Moderate (5% to 10%) Uphill Steep(10% or more) Downhill Slight (4% or less) Downhill Moderate (5% to 9%)Downhill Steep (10% or more) Unknown A Total Lanes in A IntegerDirection Unknown B Total Lanes in B Integer Direction Unknown A HadStop Line Yes No Unknown B Had Stop Line Yes No Unknown A Distance FromStop Integer Line to start of first Unknown lane B Distance From StopInteger Line to Start of First Unknown Lane

Table 2 includes a list of driver action or action of a vehiclecharacteristics that may be used in speed, time, and distance analysisof a vehicle in the accident according to one embodiment. Table 2 alsolists possible values for the driver action characteristics.

TABLE 2 DRIVER ACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND POSSIBLE VALUES DRIVER ACTIONCHARACTERISTICS POSSIBLE VALUES B Start Lane Integer Unknown B TargetLane Integer Unknown A Collision Lane  0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  3.5  4 4.5  5  5.5  6  6.5  7  7.5  8  8.5  9  9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5Median Inside Shoulder (Delete This Outside Shoulder (Delete This)Unknown A Action Prior Accelerating from a stop Constant or SlowingUnknown B Action Prior Accelerating from a stop Constant or SlowingUnknown A Distance When Danger Integer Sensed Unknown B Distance WhenDanger Integer Sensed Unknown A Skid Marks Yes No Unknown B Skid MarksYes No Unknown A Length of Skid Marks Integer Unknown B Length of SkidMarks Integer Unknown A Braking Force Moderate Hard, Controlled SlammedOn B Braking Force Moderate Hard, Controlled Slammed On A AccelerationRate Slow Medium Fast Unknown B Acceleration Rate Slow Medium FastUnknown A Stop Position Behind First Lane At First Lane After Start ofFirst Lane Unknown B Stop Position Behind First Lane At First Lane AfterStart of First Lane Unknown A distance stop position to Integer startfirst lane Unknown B Distance stop position to Integer start First LaneUnknown A Stop Lane  0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  3.5  4  4.5  5  5.5  6  6.5 7  7.5  8  8.5  9  9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 Median Unknown B StopLane  0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  3.5  4  4.5  5  5.5  6  6.5  7  7.5  8 8.5  9  9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 Median Unknown B target laneclosest? Yes No Unknown A Speed Integer Unknown B Speed Integer UnknownB Actual Speed Less Than Yes Minimum Legal Considerably Speed/PrevailingSpeed No Unknown B Hazard Lights On Yes No Unknown Primary Road Yes NoUnknown A Speed at Impact Integer, Unknown B Speed at Impact IntegerUnknown B Stopped Yes No Unknown

Table 3 includes a list of vehicle types that may be used in speed,time, and distance analysis of an accident according to one embodiment.Table 3 also lists approximate vehicle lengths that may correspond tothe vehicle types.

TABLE 3 VEHICLE TYPES AND SIZES VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLE LENGTH (FEET) Car -Mid Size 15.5 Car - Compact 14.5 Car - Full Size 16.7 SUV - Compact 13.1SUV - Mid Size 15.3 SUV - Full Size 17.5 Truck - Mid Size 16.3 Truck -Full Size 18.8 Vans - Passenger/Mini-Vans 16.1

FIG. 77 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment for estimating the startpoint and intended end position of vehicles in an accident. At decisionpoint 7701, it is determined whether the start lane for vehicle B isknown. If not, then the start lane for vehicle B may be determined 7703.In one embodiment, the start lane may depend upon the accident type, themedian width, the total number of lanes in the direction that vehicle Ais traveling, and the total lanes in the direction that vehicle B istraveling. For accident type 2, if there is no median for vehicle B,then vehicle B start lane may be given byB Start Lane=[A Total Lanes in A Direction]+1If there is there is a median for vehicle B, then B start lane may beB Start Lane=[B Median after Lane Number]+1For accident type 3, if there is no median for vehicle B, then B startlane may beB Start Lane=[B's Total Lanes]−[B Total Lanes in B Direction]+1If there is a median for vehicle B, then B start lane may beB Start Lane=[B Median after Lane Number]+1For accident type 4, B start lane may beB Start Lane=[B Total Lanes in B Direction]For accident type 5, B start lane may beB Start Lane=[B Total Lanes]

At decision point 7705, it is determined whether the collision lane ofvehicle A is a median. If the answer is positive, then a collision laneof vehicle A is determined at step 7707. The collision lane for vehicleA may be determined from, for example, the median width, the originatinglane width, and a shoulder width. The originating lane refers to thelane from which vehicle A started. In one embodiment, for accident type2, the collision lane of vehicle A may be the originating median afterlane number plus 0.5. In addition, for accident types 3, 4, 5, and 17,the vehicle A collision lane may be a median after lane number plus 0.5.

At decision point 7709, it is determined whether a vehicle A stop laneor vehicle B stop lane is unknown. It the answer is positive, then avehicle A stop lane and/or vehicle B stop lane may be determined 7711.In one embodiment, the vehicle A stop lane may be set to one. Inaddition, for accident types 3, 5, and 17 the vehicle B stop lane may beset to 1. If the accident type is 2, the vehicle B stop lane may be setto the total lanes of the intersecting roadway. If the accident type is4, a B stop lane may be set to the total lanes in the direction thatvehicle B is traveling.

In some embodiments, the method may further include estimating the ycoordinate of the start point (start y) of vehicle A at step 7713. Starty for vehicle A may be determined using roadway characteristics. Atdecision point 7715, it is determined if vehicle A is the reactingvehicle and whether the action of vehicle A prior to the accident wasconstant speed or slowing. If the answer is negative, then the xcoordinate of the start point (start x) of vehicle A, the x coordinateof the intended end position (end x) of vehicle A, and the y coordinateof the intended end position (end y) of vehicle A may be estimated 7717.If the answer to decision point 7715 is positive, then the methodproceeds to step 7719. The start point of vehicle A may be estimated atstep 7209 in FIG. 72. At step 7719, start x, start y, end x, and end yfor vehicle B may be estimated.

In some embodiments, a method for estimating start x for vehicle A fromroadway characteristics may be given by:

If [A action prior] = “constant or slowing”  If [A had stop line] = yes:A start x = −1*[A distance from  stop line to start of first lane]  If[A had stop line] = no: assume edge of intersection: A start x = 0 If [Aaction prior] = “accelerate from a stop”  If [A stop position] = “behindfirst lane”: A start x = −1 * [A distance  stop position to start firstlane]  If [A stop position] = “at first lane”: A start x = 0  If [A stopposition] = “after start of first lane” started in intersection   If AT2    Get laneWidth of lanes crossed = [intersecting road lane width]   If [Intersecting road median width] = 0 (“none”) then     A start x =([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth    If [Intersecting road median width]greater than 0 (“none”) and [A    stop lane] = “median” then     A startx = [Intersecting road median after lane #] *     laneWidth +[Intersecting road median width] + 2 *     [Intersecting road insideshoulder width]    If [Intersecting road median width] greater than 0(“none”) and [A    stop lane] less than [Intersecting road median afterlane #] then     A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth    If[Intersecting road median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [A    stoplane] is greater than [Intersecting road median after lane #]    then    A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth + [Intersecting     roadmedian width] + 2 * [Intersecting road inside shoulder     width]   IfAT 3, 4, 5, 17    Get laneWidth of lanes crossed [B lane width]    If [Bmedian width] = 0 (“none”) then     A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) *laneWidth    If [B median width] greater than 0 (“none”)    and [A stoplane] = “median” then     A start x = [B median after lane #] *laneWidth + [B     median width] + 2 * [B inside shoulder width]    If[B median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [A stop lane] less    than[B Median after lane #] then     A start x = ([A stop lane] −.5) *laneWidth    If [B median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [A stoplane] is    greater than [B median after lane #] then     A start x =([A stop lane] −.5) * laneWidth + [B median     width] + 2 * [B insideshoulder width]

In some embodiments, start y for vehicle A may be given by [A collisionlane−0.5]*[A lane width].

In some embodiments, the start x, start y, end x, and end y for vehicleB may be determined from roadway characteristics. However, in certainembodiments, at least one of the coordinates may be derived from atleast one of the other coordinates. The method of determining thestarting and intended end coordinates for vehicle B may depend on theaccident type and roadway configuration.

An embodiment of a method for determining start x, start y, end x, andend y for vehicle B for accident type 2 is depicted in FIG. 78. Atdecision point 7801, it is determined whether the roadway configurationis A, E, H, or I and if vehicle A is on a primary road, as is depictedin FIG. 79 a. If the answer to decision point 7801 is positive, thenstart x may be determined 7803 from start y, end x, and end y. Thecalculation of start x may be deferred until start y, end x, and end yare estimated from roadway characteristics. In FIG. 79 a, vehicle A 7901on primary road 7903 is approaching vehicle B 7905. Vehicle B is turningwith trajectory 7907 to secondary road 7909. Start x, y are given bypoint 7911 and end x, y are given by point 7913.

Alternatively, if the answer to decision point 7801 is negative, thenstart x is estimated 7805 from roadway characteristics, start y isestimated 7807 from roadway characteristics, and end x is estimated 7809from roadway characteristics.

At decision point 7811, it is determined whether the roadwayconfiguration is A, E, H, or I and if vehicle A is not on a primaryroad. If the answer to decision point 7811 is positive, then end y maybe calculated from start y, start x, and end x. Such a situation isdepicted in FIG. 79 b. FIG. 79 b depicts an accident scene similar tothat in FIG. 79 a, however, vehicle A 7915 on secondary road 7919 isapproaching vehicle B 7917 on secondary road 7925. Vehicle B is turningwith trajectory 7921 on to primary road 7923. If decision point 7811 isnegative, then end y may be calculated from roadway characteristics.

An embodiment of a method for determining start x, start y, end x, andend y for vehicle B for accident type 3 is depicted in FIG. 80. At step8001, start x may be estimated from roadway characteristics. At decisionpoint 8003, it is determined whether the roadway configuration is A, E,H, or I and if the vehicle A is not on a primary road as depicted inFIG. 81 a. In FIG. 81 a, vehicle A 8101 on secondary road 8103 isapproaching turning vehicle B 8105. Vehicle B is turning with trajectory8107 from primary road 8109 to secondary road 8103. Start x, y are givenby point 8111 and end x, y are given by point 8113. If the answer todecision point 8003 is positive, then start y may be calculated 8005from start x, end x, and end y. The calculation of start y may bedeferred until start x, end x, and end y are estimated from roadwaycharacteristics. The method continues to decision point 8009. If theanswer to decision point 8003 is negative, then start y is estimated8007 from roadway characteristics.

At decision point 8009, it is determined whether the roadwayconfiguration is A, E, H, or I and if the vehicle A is on a primary roadas depicted in FIG. 81 b. FIG. 81 b depicts an accident scene similar tothat in FIG. 81 a, however, vehicle A 8115 on primary road 8119 isapproaching vehicle B 8117. Vehicle B is turning with trajectory 8121from secondary road 8123 to primary road 8119. If the answer to decisionpoint 8009 is positive then end x may be calculated from start x, end y,and start y. The calculation of end x may be deferred until end y isestimated from roadway characteristics. The method then proceeds to step8015. If the answer to decision point 8009 is negative, then end x maybe estimated 8013 from roadway characteristics. End y is then estimated8015 from roadway characteristics.

An embodiment of a method for determining start x, start y, end x, andend y for vehicle B for accident type 4 is depicted in FIG. 82. Start xmay be estimated 8301 from roadway characteristics. At decision point8203, it is determined whether roadway configuration is A, E, H, or Iand if the vehicle A is not on a primary road as depicted in FIG. 83 a.In FIG. 83 a, vehicle A 8301 on secondary road 8303 is approachingturning vehicle B 8305 on primary road 8307. Vehicle B is turning withtrajectory 8309 to secondary road 8311. Start x, y are given by point8313 and end x, y are given by point 8315. If the answer to decisionpoint 8203 is positive, then start y may be calculated 8205 from startx, end x, and end y. The calculation of start y may be deferred untilstart x, end x, and end y are estimated from roadway characteristics.The method continues to decision point 8209. If the answer to decisionpoint 8203 is negative, then start y is estimated from roadwaycharacteristics.

At decision point 8209, it is determined whether roadway configurationis A, E, H, or I and if the vehicle A is on a primary road as depictedin FIG. 83 b. FIG. 83 b depicts an accident scene similar to that inFIG. 83 a, however, vehicle A 8317 on primary road 8319 is approachingvehicle B 8321 on secondary road 8323. Vehicle B is turning withtrajectory 8325 on to primary road 8319. If the answer to decision point8209 is positive then end x may be calculated from start x, end y, andstart y. The calculation of end x may be deferred until end y isestimated from roadway characteristics. The method then proceeds to step8215. If the answer to decision point 8209 is negative, then end x maybe estimated 8213 from roadway characteristics. End y is then estimated8215 from roadway characteristics.

In some embodiments, a method for estimating start x for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of 4 maybe given by:

If [B action prior] = “constant or slowing”  If [B had stop line] = yes,  B start x = [B distance from stop line to start of first lane] +[intersecting   road lane width] * [intersecting road total lanes] +[intersecting road   median width] + 2 * [intersecting road insideshoulder width]   Adjust for median and inside shoulder if necessary.The width and   presence of them are combined in to one question -“none” = 0 ft.  If [B had stop line] = no,   B start x = [intersectingroad lane width] * [intersecting road total lanes] +   [intersectingroad median width] + 2 * [intersecting road inside shoulder   width]  Adjust for median and inside shoulder if necessary. The width and  presence of them are combined in to one question - “none” = 0 ft.  If[B action prior] = “accelerate from a stop” (they were stopped at somepoint)   If [B stop position] = “behind first lane”    B start x =[distance stop position to start first lane] + [intersecting    roadlane width] * [intersecting road total lanes] + [intersecting    roadmedian width] + 2 * [intersecting road inside shoulder width]   If [Bstop position] = “at first lane” (width of intersection box)    B startx = [intersecting road lane width] * [intersecting road total   lanes] + [intersecting road median width] + 2 * [intersecting road   inside shoulder width]   If [B stop position] = “after start of firstlane” started in intersection    If [intersecting road median width] = 0(“none”)     B start x = ([B stop lane] − .5) * [intersecting road    laneWidth]    If [intersecting road median width] greater than 0(“none”) and [B     stop lane] is less than [intersecting road medianafter lane #] then      B start x = ([B stop lane] − .5) * [intersectingroad      laneWidth]    If [intersecting road median width] greater than0 (“none”) and [B    stop lane] = “median” then     B start x =[intersecting road median after lane #] *     [intersecting roadlaneWidth]    If [intersecting road median width] greater than 0(“none”) and [B    stop lane] is greater than [intersecting road medianafter lane #]    then     B start x = ([B stop lane] − .5) *[intersecting road     laneWidth] + [intersecting road median width] +2 *     [intersecting road inside shoulder width]

In some embodiments, a method for estimating start y for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of 4 maybe given by:

If [originating median width] = 0 (“none”)  B start y = [B Start Lane] *[originating lane width] If [originating median width] ] 0 (not “none”) B start y = [B Start Lane] * [originating lane width] + [originating median width] + 2 * [originating inside shoulder width]

In some embodiments, a method for estimating start x for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 3, 5, or 17 and an orientationof 1 may be given by:

If [B median width] = 0 (“none”)  B start x = ([B Start Lane] − .5) * [Blane width] If [B median width] 0 (not “none”)  B start x = ([B StartLane] − .5) * [B lane width] + [B median  width] + 2 * [B insideshoulder width]

In some embodiments, a method for estimating start y for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 3, 5, or 17 and an orientationof 1 may be given by:

If [B action prior] = “constant or slowing”  If [B had stop line] = yes,  B start y = −1 * [B distance from stop line to start of first lane] If [B had stop line] = no,   B start y = 0 If [B action prior] =“accelerated from a stop”  If [B stop position] = “behind first lane”  B start y = = −1 * [B distance stop position to start first lane]  If[B stop position] = “at first lane”   B start y = 0  If [B stopposition] = “after start of first lane”started in intersection  Get [Bstop lane] and validate   If [B stop lane] = “median” or is greater than[A collision   lane] set [B stop   lane] to [A collision lane]    Bstart y =([B stop lane] − .5) * [A lane width]

In some embodiments, a method estimating start x for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 4 and an orientation of 3 maybe given by:B start x=([B Start Lane]−0.5)*[B lane width]

In certain embodiments, a method for determining start y for vehicle Bfrom roadway characteristics for accident type 4 and an orientation of 3may be given by:

If [B action prior] = “constant or slowing”  If [B had stop line] = yes If [A median width] = 0 (“none”)   B start y = [B distance from stopline to start of first lane] + [A lane   width] * [A total lanes]  If [Amedian width] 0 (not “none”)   B start y = [B distance from stop line tostart of first lane] + [A lane   width] * [A total lanes] + [A medianwidth] + 2 * [A inside shoulder   width]  If [B had stop line] = no  If[A median width] = 0 (“none”)   B start y = [A lane width] * [A totallanes]  If [A median width] 0 (not “none”)   B start y = [A lanewidth] * [A total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A   inside shoulderwidth] If [B action prior] = “accelerated from a stop”  If [B stopposition] = “behind first lane”  If [A median width] = 0 (“none”)   Bstart y = [B distance stop position to start first lane] + [A lanewidth] *   [A total lanes]  If [A median width] 0 (not “none”)   B starty = [B distance stop position to start first lane] + [A lane width] *  [A total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A inside shoulder width]  If[B stop position] = “at first lane” (width of intersection box)  If [Amedian width] = 0 (“none”)   B start y = [A lane width] * [A totallanes]  If [A median width] ] 0 (not “none”)   B start y = [A lanewidth] * [A total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A   inside shoulderwidth]  If [B stop position] = “after start of first lane” started inintersection  If [A median width] = 0 (“none”)   B start y = ([B stoplane] − .5) * [A laneWidth]  If [A median width] 0 (“none”) and [B stoplane] = “median” then   B start y = [A median after lane #] * [A lanewidth]  If [A median width] greater than 0 (“none”) and [B stop lane] isless than or equal  to [A median after lane #] then   B start y = ([Bstop lane] − .5) * [A lane width]  If [A median width] greater than 0(“none”) and [B stop lane] is greater than [A  median after lane #] then  B start y = ([B stop lane] − .5) * [A lane width] + [A median width] +2 *   [A inside shoulder width]

In some embodiments, a method for estimating end x for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of 3 maybe given by:B intended end x=([B target lane]−0.5)*[intersecting road lane width]In some embodiments, a method for estimating end y for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 2 and an orientation of 3 maybe given by:

If [B target lane closest] = “Yes”, then  B intended end y = −2*[BVehicle Length] If [B target lane closest] is “No” then B intended  Bintended end y = −3*[B Vehicle Length]

In some embodiments, a method for estimating end x for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 3 and an orientation of 4 maybe given by:

If [B target lane closest] = “Yes” then  B intended end x = −2*[BVehicle Length] If [B target lane closest] is “No” then  B intended endx = −3*[B Vehicle Length]

In some embodiments, a method for estimating end y for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 3 and an orientation of 4 maybe given by:B intended end y=([B target lane]−0.5)*[A lane width]+[A medianwidth]+2*[A inside shoulder width]

In some embodiments, a method for estimating end x for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 4 or 5 and an orientation of 2may be given by:

If [B target lane closest] = “Yes”, then  B intended end x = [B TotalLanes]*[B lane width] +  [B median width] + 2*[B inside shoulderwidth] + 2*[B Vehicle  Length] If [B target lane closest] is “No”, then B intended end x = [B's Total Lanes]*[B lane width] + [B median width] + 2*[B inside shoulder width] + 3*[B Vehicle Length]In some embodiments, a method for estimating end y for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 4 or 5 and an orientation of 2may be given by:B intended end y=([B target lane]−0.5)*[A lane width]

In some embodiments, a method for determining end x for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 17 and an orientation of 1 maybe given by:B intended end x=start x for BIn some embodiments, a method for determining end y for vehicle B fromroadway characteristics for accident type 17 and an orientation of 1 maybe given by:B intended end y=([A Collision Lane])*[A Lane width]+2*[B VehicleLength]

As indicated in FIG. 76 a at step 7607, an embodiment of a method forestimating the theoretical path of vehicles in an accident may includedetermining mathematical relationships for the path of at least onepoint of on at least one vehicle, for example, turning vehicle B. In oneembodiment, the path of a point on a vehicle may be described by aportion of an ellipse.

In one embodiment, the method depicted in FIG. 77 may include estimatingthe start and end coordinates of at least one point on a vehicle, forexample, impact point 812 (vehicle point 12 or vehicle 12), as shown inFIG. 8 a. The start and end coordinates of a vehicle point may be usedto determine a mathematical relationship for a trajectory between thestart and end coordinates.

In certain embodiments, the start and end coordinates of at least oneadditional vehicle point may be determined from the start and endcoordinates of at least one other vehicle point. Table 4 lists thecoordinates of vehicle points with respect to vehicle point 812 for thefour vehicle orientations in FIG. 76 b. The numbers in the “Point”column refer to vehicle points depicted in FIG. 8 a. “W” is the widthunit of a vehicle and “L” is the length unit of the vehicle.

TABLE 4 COORDINATES OF VEHICLE POINTS WITH RESPECT TO VEHICLE POINT 12Orientation 1 2 3 4 Point x y X Y x y x y 801 W 0 0 −W −W 0 0 W 802 W −L−L −W −W L L W 803 W −2L −2L −W −W 2L 2L W 804 W −3L −3L −W −W 3L 3L W805 W −4L −4L −W −W 4L 4L W 806 0 −4L −4L 0 0 4L 4L 0 807 −W −4L −4L W W4L 4L −W 808 −W −3L −3L W W 3L 3L −W 809 −W −2L −2L W W 2L 2L −W 810 −W−L −L W W L L −W 811 −W 0 0 W W 0 0 −W 812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

In one embodiment, pseudo-code for determining the coordinates of avehicle point from the coordinates of vehicle point 12 may be given as:

// get starting values X12 = x value for vehicle point 12 Y12 = y valuefor vehicle point 12 TW = get total width of vehicle for vehicle classTL = get total length of vehicle from vehicle class (or ask???) W = TW/2L = TL/4 // get starting offset for orientation 1   // get x offset xo  if pt 6, 12 xo=0   else if pt 1-5 xo = W   else xo = −W   // get yoffset yo   if pt 12 yo = 0   else if pt 6 yo = −4L   else if pt 7-11 yo= (pt - 11) * L   else yo = (pt-1) * −1 * L // pts 1-5   // put valuessomewhere else temporarily so we can swap, if needed   startXO = xo  startYO = yo // modify to fit others, if orientation is not 1   iforientation = 2      // swap x & y; negate x     xo = startYO * −1    yo = startXO   else if orientation = 3    // negate x and y     xo =startXO * −1     yo = startYO * −1   else if orientation = 4    // swapx & y; negate y     xo = startYO     yo = startXO * −1   // xo, yoalready correct for orientation 1 // get x, y based on point 12 andoffset   x = X12 + xo     y = Y12 + yo

FIG. 84 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of estimatinga mathematical relationship for a trajectory of one or more vehiclepoints. The method may include selecting 8401 one or more vehiclepoints, such that the start and end coordinates of at least one vehiclepoint are known. For example, the start and end coordinates of vehiclepoint 12 may be known from the method in FIG. 76 a. It may be desirableto select vehicle points that may be used to estimate the coordinates ofa collision area shown in FIG. 74. For example, the first vehicle point(vehicleFP), the last vehicle point (vehicleLP), and a collision vehiclepoint (vehicleCP) may be selected. As used herein, the “first vehiclepoint” refers to the first point on a turning vehicle to occupy acollision area. For example, vehicle point 7413 may correspond to afirst vehicle point. Similarly, the “last vehicle point” refers to thelast point on a vehicle to occupy the collision area. For example,vehicle point 7417 may correspond to a last vehicle point. In addition,the “collision point” refers to the point on the roadway within thecollision area where impact points of vehicles in the accident meet. Forexample, vehicle point 7421 may correspond to a collision point. In oneembodiment, the first point and last point may depend on the accidenttype. Table 5 lists the vehicle points that correspond to severalaccident types.

TABLE 5 VEHICLE POINTS CORRESPONDING TO ACCIDENT TYPES Accident TypeVehicleFP VehicleLP 2 811 805 3 801 807 4 801 807 5 811 805 17 812 806

The collision vehicle point may correspond to the vehicle B impactpoint.

In some embodiments, a method may further include determining 8403 thestart and end coordinates of vehicle points that are unknown from theknown coordinates of a vehicle point. For example, the start and endcoordinates of vehicleFP and vehicleLP may be determined from thecoordinates of vehicle12 using Table 4.

In certain embodiments, a method may include determining 8405 amathematical relationship or curve between the start and end coordinatesof at least one vehicle point. The mathematical relationship mayrepresent the trajectory of at least one vehicle point. The mathematicalrelationship may be determined using the start and end coordinates of atleast one vehicle point. For example, trajectory 7415 in FIG. 74 may bea curve for vehicleFP (FP curve), trajectory 7419 may be a curve forvehicleLP (LP curve), and trajectory 7423 may be a curve for vehicleCP(CP curve).

In one embodiment, a mathematical relationship for a trajectory of avehicle point may be a portion of an ellipse. The general equation foran ellipse is given by:(x−c)²/a+(y−d)²/bwhere “a” is the length of a first axis of the ellipse and “b” is thelength of a second axis of the ellipse that is centered at (c, d). FIG.85 depicts an ellipse with axes “a” and “b” centered at (c, d).

In some embodiments, the starting point of a curve, such as an ellipse,that describes a trajectory of vehicle B may not correspond to a startpoint (start x and start y) of vehicle B. In an embodiment, the startingpoint may not correspond to the start of a curve when vehicle Baccelerated from a stop prior to the accident. For example, vehicle Bmay have accelerated from a stop that was further back from the pointwhere vehicle B started an elliptical path. A method of estimating thecoordinates of the start of an ellipse (ES x, ES y) and the distancefrom the ellipse start to the start point (D_(SP to ES)) may be givenby:

If Orientation 1   Find Ellipse Start y    If Vehicle12 y at Start isless than −[B Vehicle Length], then     Vehicle ES y value = −[B VehicleLength].    If Vehicle12 y at Start is greater than or equal to −[BVehicle    Length], then     VehicleES y value = Vehicle12 y at Start  Find Ellipse Start x    Vehicle ES x value = Vehicle12 x at Start  Find D_(SP to ES)    D_(SP to ES) = ABS(Vehicle ES y − Vehicle 12 y)If Orientation 3   Find Ellipse Start y    If Vehicle12 y at Start isgreater than [A lane width] * [A total    lanes] + [A median width] +2 * [A inside shoulder width] + [B    Vehicle Length], then     VehicleES y = [A lane width] * [A total lanes] + [A     median width] + 2 * [Ainside shoulder width]+ [B Vehicle     Length]    If Vehicle12 y atStart is less than or equal to [A lane width] * [A    total lanes] + [Amedian width] + 2 * [A inside shoulder width]+    [B vehicle Length],then     Vehicle ES y value = Vehicle12 y at Start   Find Ellipse Startx     Vehicle ES x value = Vehicle 12 x at Start   Find D_(SP to ES)    D_(SP to ES) = ABS(Vehicle 12 y − vehicle ES y) If Orientation 4  Find Ellipse Start x    If Vehicle 12 x at Start is greater than[intersecting road lane    width] * [intersecting road total lanes] +[intersecting road median    width] + 2 * [intersecting road insideshoulder width] + [B Vehicle    Length], then     Vehicle ES x =[intersecting road lane width] *     [intersecting road total lanes] +[intersecting road median     width] + 2 * [intersecting road insideshoulder width] + [B     Vehicle Length]    If Vehicle 12 at Start isless than or equal to [intersecting road lane    width] * [intersectingroad total lanes] + [intersecting road median    width] + 2 *[intersecting road inside shoulder width] + [B Vehicle    Length], then    Vehicle ES x value = Vehicle 12 x at Start   Find Ellipse Start y   Vehicle ES y value = Vehicle 12 y at Start   Find D_(SP to ES)   D_(SP to ES) = ABS(Vehicle 12 x − vehicle ES x)

In one embodiment, the values of a, b, c, and d may be determined for atleast one vehicle point to generate an equation for an ellipse of thetrajectory of the vehicle point. The value of “a” for a vehicle pointmay be determined from:a=Absolute value(vehicle point ellipse start x (ES x)−end x of vehiclepoint)The value of “b” for a vehicle point may be determined from:b=Absolute value(vehicle point ellipse start y(ES y)−end y of vehiclepoint)The values of “c” and “d” may depend on the accident type. For example,c and d for accident type 2 may be given by:c=ES x d=end yIn addition, c and d for accident types 3, 4, 5, and 17 may be given by:c=end x d=ES y

FIGS. 86 a-c depict portions of ellipses that represent trajectories forvarious accident types. FIG. 86 a depicts portion 8601 for accident type2. Point 8609 is the start of the portion of the ellipse, point 8611 isthe end of the portion of the ellipse, and point 8613 is the center ofthe ellipse. FIG. 86 b depicts portion 8603 for accident type 3 andportion 8605 for accident type 5. For portion 8603, point 8615 is thestart of the portion of the ellipse, point 8617 is the end of theportion of the ellipse, and point 8621 is the center of the ellipse. Forportion 8605, point 8615 is the start of the portion of an ellipse,point 8619 is the end of the portion of the ellipse, and point 8623 isthe center of the ellipse. FIG. 86 c depicts portion 8607 for accidenttype 4. Point 8625 is the start of a portion of an ellipse, point 8627is the end of a portion of an ellipse, and point 8629 is the center ofthe ellipse.

An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distance ofvehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart in FIG.72 may also include estimating 7205 coordinates of the collision area.In an embodiment, a collision area may be defined using a collision laneand a trajectory of at least one point on the turning vehicle. Thecollision area, as shown in FIG. 74, may be rectangular in shape. Inother embodiments, the collision area may be other shapes, such assquare or elliptical.

“Collision area points” refer to points on or inside the collision areathat are intersected by vehicle points. “AreaFP” may refer to the pointat which the first vehicle point of a vehicle (vehicleFP) enters thecollision area. For example, collision area point 7429 in FIG. 74 may bean areaFP. In one embodiment, areaFP may be determined from the firstintersection of the trajectory of vehicleFP and the collision lane. Forexample, the intersection of trajectory 7415 with edge 7435 of collisionlane 7427 may determine areaFP. In an embodiment, the trajectory ofvehicleFP, such as trajectory 7415, may be a mathematical relationship,such as an ellipse, derived using the method depicted in FIG. 84.

In an embodiment, the equation for the edge of the collision lane maydepend on the accident type. The x and y coordinates of areaFP may begiven as:

AT 2, 4: areaFPy = vehicle12y of vehicle A + ½ [collision lane width] AT3, 5: areaFPy = vehicle12y of vehicle A − ½ [collision lane width]areaFPx = ellipseIntercept(curve = FP, x value = N/A, y value = areaFPy)AT 17: areaFPx = B start x − ½ [vehicle B lane width] areaFPy =vehicle12 − ½ [vehicle A lane width]Vehicle12 y of vehicle A is the y coordinate of vehicle12.EllipseIntercept may refer to a function that determines the x-value ofa point on an ellipse at a known y-value. For accident type 3, anx-value may be determined from:x=c+a(1−(y−d)² /b ²)^(1/2)where a, b, c, and d are ellipse parameters shown in FIG. 85. Thex-value for accident types 2, 4, and 5 may be determined from:x=c−a(1−(y−d)² /b ²)^(1/2)Similarly, a y-value may be determined from a known x-value. Foraccident types 2, 3, and 5, a y-value may be determined from:y=d+b(1−(x−c)² /a ²)^(1/2)For accident type 4, a y-value may be determined from:y=d−b(1−(x−c)² /a ²)^(1/2)

“AreaLP” may refer to the point at which the last vehicle point of avehicle (vehicleLP) exits the collision area. For example, collisionarea point 7431 in FIG. 74 may be an areaLP. In one embodiment, areaLPmay be determined from the second intersection of the trajectory ofvehicleLP with the collision lane. For example, the intersection oftrajectory 7419 with edge 7437 of collision lane 7427 may determineareaLP. In an embodiment, the trajectory of vehicleLP may be amathematical relationship, such as an ellipse, derived using the methoddepicted in FIG. 84. The coordinates of areaLP may be given as:

If AT 17 areaLPx = vehicle B start x + ½ [B Lane Width] areaLPy =vehicle A vehicle12 + ½ [A lane width] If AT 2, 3, 4, 5 areaLPx =ellipseIntercept(LP, N/A, areaLPy) If AT 2, 4: areaLPy = A vehicle12 − ½[A lane width] If AT 3, 5: areaLPy = A vehicle12 + ½ [A lane width]

“AreaCP” may refer to the point inside the collision area at which thetrajectory of impact points (vehicleCP) of vehicle A and vehicle Bintersect. For example, areaCP in FIG. 74, point 7441, may be determinedfrom the intersection of trajectory 7443 of vehicle point 7439 withtrajectory 7423 of vehicle point 7421. The trajectory of vehicleCP ofvehicle B, such as trajectory 7423, may be a mathematical relationship,such as an ellipse, derived using the method depicted in FIG. 84.Trajectory 7423 corresponds to the trajectory of the impact point ofvehicle B (B vehicleCP). The coordinates of areaCP may be given by:

areaCPy = ([A Collision Lane] − 0.5) * [A Lane Width] + widthDifference widthDifference =   If impact point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, widthDifference = −3  If impact point 6, 12, widthDifference = 0   If impact point 7, 8, 9,10, 11, widthDifference = 3 areaCPx = ellipseIntercept(CP, N/A, areaCPy)

An embodiment of a method of using speed, time, and distance of vehiclesfor assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart in FIG. 72 mayalso include estimating 7207 the time, a perception time, for acollision point on the reference vehicle to travel from a perceptionpoint to the collision area. The perception point may be determinedusing a visibility start point. The “visibility start point” is aposition on the reference vehicle's travel path at which a reactingvehicle may be expected to first notice the reference vehicle. The timeat the visibility start point may be no earlier than the time at thestart point of the reference vehicle.

FIG. 87 a and FIG. 87 b depict the trajectories of vehicle points forvehicles A and B, respectively. Point A is vehicleFP at the start pointof vehicle A (FIG. 87 b) or vehicle B (FIG. 87 a), point B is vehicleFPat the visibility start, point C is vehicleFP at the perception point,and point D is vehicleFP at areaFP. Point E is vehicleCP at the startpoint, point F is vehicleCP when vehicleFP is at the perception point,and point G is vehicleCP at areaCP. As shown in FIG. 87 a and 87 b, thepoints may refer to either vehicle A or vehicle B.

FIG. 88 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of estimatingthe time and distance traveled by vehicleCP from the perception point tothe collision point. Referring to FIG. 87 a or FIG. 87 b, the methodestimates the time and distance between point F and point G (FG). Themethod includes estimating 8801 the visibility start point forvehicleFP, which is point B in FIGS. 87 a and b. In one embodiment, thevisibility start point may be the start point for the reference vehicleestimated with the method depicted in FIG. 84. For example, thevisibility start point may be at the start point of vehicleFP.

Alternatively, the visibility start point may differ from the startpoint if a view of the roadway was obstructed, for example, by parkedcars. In one embodiment, if the start point of the vehicle is at theedge or inside the intersection box shown in FIG. 73, then thevisibility start point may be at the start point of vehicleFP. If thestart point is behind the edge of the intersection box, the visibilitystart point may be at the edge of the intersection box. In oneembodiment, a method of estimating the visibility start point (Visstart) may include the following:

If viewObstructed  If vehicle's start point at edge of or insideintersection box   Vis start x = start vehicleFP x   Vis start y = startvehicleFP y If start point behind edge of intersection box   Visibilitystart point is edge of intersection box   B reference vehicle    Startorientation = 1     If AT 17: Vis start x =B start vehicleFP x     OtherATs : Vis start x = ellipseIntersect(FP ellipse, x =     N/A, y = 0)         Vis start y = 0    Start orientation = 4     Vis start x =right intersection edge = [intersecting road     lane width] *[intersecting road total lanes] + [intersecting     road median width] +2 * [intersecting road inside shoulder     width]     Vis start y =ellipseIntercept(FP ellipse, x = vis start x, y =     N/A)    Startorientation = 3     Vis start x =ellipseIntercept(FP ellipse, x = N/A, y= vis     start y)     Vis start y = top intersection edge = [A lanewidth] * [A     total lanes] + [A median width] + 2 * [A inside shoulder    width]   A reference vehicle    Start orientation = 2     Vis startx = 0     Vis start y = start vehicleFP y If view not obstructed   Visstart x = vehicleFP x   Vis start y = vehicleFP y

In an embodiment, the method in FIG. 88 may further include estimating8803 a distance from vehicleFP at visibility start (point B) to thecollision area (point D or areaFP), which is BD in FIGS. 87 a and b. Forexample, if vehicle B is the reference vehicle and its view isobstructed, BD may be found from the arc length of an FP curve from thestart point to the collision area. An “FP curve” is a mathematicalrelationship representing the trajectory of vehicleFP. In an embodiment,the curve may be a portion of an ellipse. In one embodiment, theestimation of the arc length of an ellipse may be expressed as follows:BD=arclength(FP, B vis start x, areaFPx)If the view is not obstructed, BD is the arc length above in addition tothe distance from the start point to the ellipse start:BD=arclength(FP, B vis start x, areaFPx)+D _(SP to ES)Arclength( curve, x1, x2) is a function which calculates the arc lengthof ellipse “curve” between “x1” and “x2.” The pseudo-code for the arclength function may be given as:

Float f(x,a,b) // beware of having to cast expression or sub-expressionsto float Return(sqrt(a{circumflex over ( )}2 * cos(x){circumflex over( )}2 + b{circumflex over ( )}2 * sin(x){circumflex over ( )}2)) // forAT 17, call this method but use the two y values of the points insteadof the x values Float arclength(curve, x1, x2) // beware of need to castto float get a, b, c, d for the appropriate ellipse, FP, CP, LP // checkfor cases where ellipse is a line if (a = = 0)  if AT 17  return abs(x2− x1) // note inputs are really y values in this case  else error if (b= = 0)  return abs(x2 − x1) // this should never happen // centerellipse on origin x1 = x1 − c x2 = x2 − c // ensure arc is to the rightof y axis (positive x values) x1 = abs(x1) x2 = abs(x2) if (x1 > x2) { float temp  temp = x1  x1 = x2  x2 = temp } // ensure x not beyond Aaxis of ellipse if (x2 > a)  x2 = a if (x1 < 0)  x1 = 0 // expressintegral limits in terms of x, instead of in radians float lowerLimit,upperLimit lowerLimit = arcsin(x1/a) upperLimit = arcsin(x2/a) /*evaluate integral as described in white paper */ // set number ofiterations << to be determined experimentally>> MUST BE EVEN intiterations = 8 stepSize = (upperLimit − lowerLimit) / iterations //evaluate first and last terms float sum=0 sum = f(lowerLimit,a,b) +f(upperLimit,a,b) // evaluate remaining n−2 terms int coefficient = 2for(int k = 1; k<iterations; ++k) {  coefficient = 6-coefficient  sum +=coefficient * f(lowerLimit+k*stepSize,a,b) } sum *= stepSize / 3return(sum) If vehicle A is the reference vehicle, BD may be found from: BD = min(areaFPx and areaLPx) - vis start x

In one embodiment, the method in FIG. 88 may also include estimating8805 a distance for vehicleFP at the perception point (point C) to thecollision area (point D or areaFP), which is CD in FIGS. 87 a and b.First, it may be determined whether vehicle A or vehicle B is on thenear side or the far side. The terms “near side” and “far side” refer tothe distance between vehicles as they enter an intersection. Arelatively large distance between vehicles may correspond to a reactingvehicle approaching from the far side of an intersection with respect toa reference vehicle. Alternatively, a relatively small distance betweenvehicles may correspond to a reacting vehicle approaching from the nearside of an intersection with respect to a reference vehicle. In oneembodiment, near side or far side may be determined by the following:

AT 3, If reference vehicle is vehicle A and 5, 17 [B Median Width] isgreater than “none”, or Roadway = H and [Primary Road] = “No”, or [BCenter Turn Lane] = “Yes”, Far Side Otherwise, Near Side AT 4 Ifreference vehicle is vehicle B and [A Median Width] is greater than“none” or Roadway = H and [Primary Road] = “Yes” or [A Center Turn Lane]= “Yes”, Far Side Otherwise, Near Side AT 2 If [Originating MedianWidth] is greater than “none” or Roadway = H and [Primary Road] = “Yes”or [Originating Center Turn Lane} = “Yes”, Far Side Otherwise, Near Side

In one embodiment, the reference vehicle may travel a specified distancefrom visibility start (point B in FIGS. 87 a and b) to the collisionarea (point D on FIG. 87 a and b) before the reacting vehicle perceivesdanger. If the vehicle is on the far side, then the reference vehiclemay travel specified fraction of the distance from point B to point Dbefore the reacting vehicle perceives danger. In one embodiment, thespecified fraction may be two thirds, which makes CD approximately ⅓*BD.In other embodiments, specified fraction may be slightly more or lessthan two thirds. If the vehicle is on the near side, then the referencevehicle may travel a another specified fraction of the distance frompoint B to point D before the reacting vehicle perceives danger. In anembodiment, the specified fraction may be one third, which makes CDapproximately ⅔*BD. In some embodiments, the another specified fractionmay be slightly more or less than one third.

An embodiment of the method in FIG. 88 may include estimating 8807 adistance for vehicleFP from the starting point (point A) to thecollision area (point D or areaFP), which is AD in FIGS. 87 a and b. Ifvehicle B is the reference vehicle, AD in FIG. 87 a, may be given by thearc length of an FP curve (from the curve start to the collision area)and the distance from the start point to the curve start. For example,AD may be given by:AD=arclength(FP, vehicleFPx ES, areaFPx)+D _(SP to ES)where vehicleFPxES is the x-coordinate of vehicleFP at the start of theellipse.

If vehicle A is the reference vehicle, AD may be found fromAD=min(areaFPx and areaLPx)−A start vehicleFPx

The distance for vehicleFP may then be estimated 8809 from the startingpoint of a vehicle to the perception point, which is AC in FIGS. 87 aand b from:AC=AD−CDwhere CD has been determined at step 8805. The method in FIG. 88 mayalso include estimating 8811 the distance for vehicleCP from thestarting point of a vehicle (point E) to the collision area (point G orvehicleCP at areaCP), which is EG in FIGS. 87 a and b. If vehicle B isthe reference vehicle, EG in FIG. 88 a may be estimated from the arclength of a CP curve from the curve start to point G and the distancefrom the start point to the curve start. A “CP curve” is mathematicalrelationship, such as a portion of an ellipse, representing thetrajectory of vehicleCP. For example, EG may be given by:EG=arclength(CP, B vehicleCPx ES, areaCPx)+D _(SP to ES)If vehicle A is the reference vehicle, EG may be found fromEG=areaCPx−A start vehicleCPx

An embodiment of the method in FIG. 88 may include estimating 8813 thetime for vehicleCP to travel from the point when vehicleFP is at theperception point (point F) to when vehicleCP is at areaCP (point G).t_(FG) may be determined by:t _(FG) =t _(EG) −t _(EF)t_(EG), the time to travel distance EG, may be estimated from theinitial velocity of a vehicle (V₀), the acceleration (a_(A)), and themaximum curve velocity (V_(MC)).

In general, the time to travel a distance with no acceleration may bedetermined by the distance divided by the velocity. Furthermore, thetime to travel a distance with acceleration may be determined from:t=(v ₀±(v ₀ ²+2 a d)^(1/2))/2where a is the acceleration, d is the distance, and v₀ is the initialvelocity. However, if a vehicle is accelerating on a curve, the speed islimited to the maximum curve velocity. The time for a vehicle to travela distance d on a curve that reaches the maximum curve velocity mayinclude two portions, t₁ and t₂. t₁ is the time to reach the maximumcurve velocity:t ₁=(v _(MC) −v ₀)/d

The time traveled at the maximum curve velocity is given by:t ₂=(d−d ₁)/v _(MC)whered ₁ =v ₀ t ₁+½at ₁ ²

In one embodiment, a function, timeToTravel(d, accelerating, v₀, a,maxv, endv), may be used to determine the time to travel a givendistance, where “endv” is the velocity at the endpoint of a trajectory.“Accelerating” refers to whether the vehicle is accelerating or not. ThetimeToTravel function may also determine the velocity at the endpoint.

For example, t_(EG) may be estimated by:t _(EG)=timeToTravel(EG, accelerating, v ₀ , a _(A) , v _(MC) , v _(G))a_(A) is a positive acceleration. In one embodiment, pseudo-code for thefunction timeToTravel may be given by:

timeToTravel(d, accelerating, v, a, maxv, &endv) if d < 0  d = 0 ifaccelerating or a <> 0  if maxv given // on a curve   v = min(v, maxv)  // get time to reach maxv   t1 = (vmax − v) / a   // how far travelledin that time   d1 = v * t1 + .5 * a * t1*t1   if d1 <= d // reached maxvbefore distance travelled    endv = maxv    // remaining distance d−d1covered at constant speed    // total time is time accelerating + timeat constant    t = t1 + (d − d1) / maxv   else // never reached maxv   if not solveQuadratic(.5*a, v, −1*d, t) error!! //else t is the time else // unconstrained acceleration   if v = 0    t = sqrt(2 * d / a)  else    if not solveQuadratic(.5*a, v, −1*d, t) error!! //else t isthe time    endv = v + at  else // constant speed   if maxv given    v =min(v, maxv)   t = d / v   endv = v

As used herein, the maximum curve velocity (v_(MC)) may be the speed ofa turning vehicle at which the driver of the vehicle experiences aspecified gravitational force in a direction outward from the curve. Themaximum curve velocity may be applicable to vehicle B when it is turningand accelerating. In one embodiment, the specified gravitational forcemay be the maximum force that a driver may comfortably tolerate.

The maximum curve velocity may depend on whether the curve radius isincreasing or decreasing. For example, for accident type 2

-   -   b<a: decreasing curve radius    -   b≧a: increasing curve radius        where a and b are radii of an ellipse shown in FIG. 85.        Similarly, for accident types 3, 4, and 5    -   b<a: increasing curve radius    -   b≧a: decreasing curve radius

In one embodiment, the maximum curve speed for an ellipse may beapproximated by the maximum the speed for an equivalent circle. Theradius of an equivalent circle may be determined from:

-   -   decreasing radius, r=min(a, b)    -   increasing radius, r=(a+b)/2

In an embodiment, the maximum curve speed may be estimated from apercentage of a critical curve speed (CCS). The critical curve speed isdefined as the speed beyond which a vehicle slides out of a turn.Alternatively, the maximum curve speed may be estimated using agravitational force that a driver tolerates during a turn. The speed atwhich a driver would experience the tolerated gravitational force may begiven asCCS (in miles per hour)=3.86((radius in feet*C _(f))^(1/2)where C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between a vehicle and aroadway. In some embodiments, C_(f) may be between about 0.3 and about0.5. In other embodiments, C_(f) may be between about 0.2 and 0.3. Incertain embodiments, C_(f) may be between about 0.5 and 0.6.

In one embodiment, t_(EF) may be determined from t_(AC). t_(EF) is thesame as t_(AC) since all of the points on a vehicle travel together,and, therefore, take the same amount of time to travel. t_(AC) may bedetermined from distance AC, the initial velocity of a vehicle, theacceleration, and the maximum curve velocity. For example, t_(AC) may beestimated by:t _(AC)=timeToTravel(AC, accelerating, v ₀ , a _(A) , v _(MC) , v _(C))

An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distance ofvehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart in FIG.72 may also include estimating 7209 a location of a reacting vehicle. Inone embodiment, t_(FG) for the reference vehicle may be used to estimatea location of the reacting vehicle. In certain embodiments, the positionof the reacting vehicle at time, t_(FG), before the collision may beused to assess an opportunity of the reacting vehicle to avoid theaccident. At t_(FG) before the collision, both the reference vehicle andthe reacting vehicle may have at least some opportunity to notice oneanother. Therefore, t_(FG) before the collision may be the earliestpoint at which the vehicles may have started to perceive, react, andbrake.

FIG. 87 a and FIG. 87 b will be referred to in embodiments of methods oflocating the reacting vehicle. The location of the reacting vehiclet_(FG) before the collision may be at point F in FIG. 87 a and FIG. 87b. Therefore, the reacting vehicle may be pushed back a distance FG_(RV)from the location of the collision. t_(FG) may be referred to as t_(PB).In an embodiment, estimating the location of the reacting vehicle maydepend on its actions prior to the accident. The actions may includecontinuing from a constant rate of speed, traveling at a constant speedand then braking, and accelerating from a stop.

In some embodiments, if the action of the reacting vehicle is continuingfrom a constant rate of speed then:EF_(RV)=v₀ t_(AC)where t_(AC) is determined at step 8813 in FIG. 88. In addition, FG_(RV)may be determined from:FG_(RV)=v₀ t_(PB)where v₀ is the initial velocity of the reacting vehicle and t_(PB) isdetermined at step 8813 in FIG. 88.

FIG. 89 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method of locatingthe reacting vehicle if the vehicle was traveling at a constant speedand then braked. The method may include obtaining 8901 a time toperceive and react or perception-reaction time (t_(PR)). tpR refers tothe time required for a driver to perceive and react to danger. t_(PR)may depend on the weather, lighting, and type of roadway. Table 6 listsperception-reaction times for various roadways and weather and lightingconditions.

TABLE 6 PERCEPTION-REACTION (PR) TIMES FOR VARIOUS ROADWAYS AND WEATHERAND LIGHTING CONDITIONS PR Time (sec) Weather Lighting Roadway 1.5 ClearDaylight — 1.5 Cloudy Daylight — 1.5 Misting Rain Daylight — 2.5 —Daylight Curved 2.5 — Daylight Hillcrest 2.5 Light-Moderate RainDaylight — 2.5 Light-Moderate Snow Daylight — 2.5 Clear Dawn — 2.5Cloudy Dawn — 2.5 Clear Dusk — 2.5 Cloudy Dusk — 2.5 Misting Rain Dawn —2.5 Misting Rain Dusk — 2.5 Clear Night w/Streetlights — 2.5 CloudyNight w/Streetlights — 2.5 Misting Rain Night w/Streetlights — 3.5 —Night w/Streetlights Curved 3.5 — Night w/Streetlights Hillcrest 3.5Light-Moderate Rain Night w/Streetlights — 3.5 Light-Moderate Snow Nightw/Streetlights — 3.5 Clear Night w/o Streetlights — 3.5 Cloudy Night w/oStreetlights — 3.5 Misting Rain Night w/o Streetlights — 3.5 Heavy RainDaylight — 3.5 Heavy Snow Daylight — 3.5 Sleet/Hail/Freezing RainDaylight — 4.0 — Night w/o Streetlights Curved 4.0 — Night w/oStreetlights Hillcrest 4.0 Light-Moderate Rain Night w/o Streetlights —4.0 Light-Moderate Snow Night w/o Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Rain Dawn —4.0 Heavy Snow Dawn — 4.0 Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Dawn — 4.0 Heavy RainDusk — 4.0 Heavy Snow Dusk — 4.0 Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Dusk — 4.0Heavy Rain Night w/Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Snow Night w/Streetlights —4.0 Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Night w/Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Rain Nightw/o Streetlights — 4.0 Heavy Snow Night w/o Streetlights — 4.0Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain Night w/o Streetlights — 4.0Fog/Smoke/Smog/Dust Daylight — 4.0 Fog w/Rain Daylight —

The acceleration due to braking force (a_(B)), which is negative, maythen be obtained 8903. It is determined at decision point 8905 whetherthere were skid marks at the accident scene. If there were skid marks,the maximum speed a vehicle could have been traveling (v_(SM)) may beestimated 8907 from skid mark length (d_(SM)) and estimated speed atimpactv _(SM)=(2a d _(SM)+([Speed at Impact])²)^(1/2)At decision point 8909, it is determined whether v_(SM)<v₀. If theanswer is yes, then v₀=v_(SM). The method then proceeds to step 8913. Ifthe decision point 8909 is negative, then the method proceeds to step8913. If the answer to decision point 8905 is negative, then method alsoproceeds to step 8913. The time required to completely stop may then beestimated 8913. In one embodiment, the time required to completely stop(t_(stop)) may be determined by:t _(stop) =t _(PR) +v ₀ /a _(B)

The method then may include determining FG_(RV) at step 8915. Ift_(pB)>t_(stop), then it is possible for the reacting vehicle to stop atsome time between the time at the perception point and the time at thecollision point. The trajectory may include a portion at a constantspeed and a portion during which the vehicle is braking. In this case,distance FG_(RV) may be estimated by:FG _(RV) =v ₀ ²/2a _(B)+(t _(PB) −t _(braking))v ₀

If t_(PB)≦t_(PR), it is not possible for a reacting vehicle to startbraking before the collision. The reacting vehicle would be traveling atconstant speed between the time at the perception point and the time atthe collision point. Therefore, FG_(RV) is given by:FG_(RV)=v₀t_(PB)If t_(PR)<t_(PB)<t_(stop), then a portion of the time between theperception point and the collision point is perceiving and reacting anda portion is braking. FG_(RV) may be given by:FG _(RV) =t _(PR) v ₀+(t _(brake) v ₀−½a _(B) t _(brake) ²)

FIG. 90 illustrates an embodiment of a method of estimating FG_(RV) ifthe reacting vehicle accelerated from a stop prior to the accident. Themethod may include obtaining 9001 the positive acceleration (a_(A)). Atdecision point 9003, it is determined whether the reacting vehicle isturning vehicle B and if the accident type is not 17. If the answer ispositive, then the maximum turning velocity (v_(MC)) may be obtained9005. The method may proceed to step 9007. If decision point 9003 isnegative, then the distance to the collision point, EG in FIGS. 87 a andb, may be obtained 9007. For vehicle B with accident type 17 or vehicleA, thenVehicle A: EG _(RV)=vehicleCPx−A start vehicleCPxVehicle B: EG _(RV)=vehicleCPy−B start vehicleCpywhere A vehicleCPx is the x-coordinate of the collision point at thestart point of vehicle A and B vehicleCPy is the y-coordinate of thecollision point at the start point of vehicle B. For vehicle B when theaccident type is not 17, EG may be given by the arc length of the CPcurve between the curve start point and the collision area and thedistance between the start point and the curve start. For example, ifthe curve is a portion of an ellipse:EG _(RV=arclength() CP, vehicleCPx ES, areaCPx)+D _(SP to ES)

At decision point 9009, it is determined whether t_(PB) is less than thet_(PR), the perception-reaction time. If yes, then the reacting vehiclehas no opportunity to brake. If the reacting vehicle is not turning(vehicle B with accident type 17 or vehicle A) thenFG _(RV) =a _(A)(t _(EG) −t _(PB))t _(PB)+½a _(A) t ² _(PB)If the reacting vehicle was turning, then EF_(RV) may first beestimated. If the time to reach the maximum turning velocity (v_(MC)) isless than t_(EG), then the turning vehicle is accelerating on a portionof EF_(RV) and traveling at constant v_(MC) along a portion of EF_(RV):EF _(RV)=½a _(A) t ²+(t _(EF) −t) v _(MC)where t is the time to reach v_(MC). If the time to reach the maximumturning velocity is greater than or equal to t_(EG), thenEF_(RV)=½a_(A)t_(EF) ²FG_(RV) may then be determined fromFG _(RV) =EG _(RV) −EF _(RV)

If the answer to decision point 9009 is negative, it is determinedwhether t_(PB) is greater than t_(EG) at decision point 9013. If theanswer is positive, then reacting vehicle had no opportunity to brake,therefore, FG_(RV) may be set to EG_(RV) at 9015. If decision point 9013is negative, then the reacting vehicle has the opportunity to brake andthe braking time may be estimated 9017 fromt _(B) =t _(FG) −t _(PR)At decision point 9019, it is determined whether the reacting vehicle isturning or is not braking. If the answer to decision point 9019 is yes,the time the vehicle traveled at constant speed is estimated 9021. Atdecision point 9023, it is determined if the time the vehicle traveledat constant speed is less then or equal to zero. If the answer is no,then FG_(RV) may be estimated 9025. First, it is determined whether thetime the vehicle traveled at constant speed is less than theperception-reaction time. In this case FG_(RV)=EG_(RV)−EF_(RV). If thetime the vehicle traveled at constant speed is greater than or equal tothe perception-reaction time, thenFG _(RV) =v _(MC) t _(PR) +v _(MC) t _(B)−½a _(B) t _(B) ²If decision point 9023 is positive, the method proceeds to step 9027.

If decision point 9019 is negative, then the reacting vehicleaccelerated the entire time 9027. FG_(RV) may be estimated byFG _(RV) =EG _(RV)−½(t _(A) −t _(PR))²where t_(A) is the total time spent accelerating.

An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distance ofvehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart in FIG.72 may also include estimating 7211 a time for a reference vehicle toclear the collision area shown in FIG. 74. At the time of the collision,vehicleCP of vehicle A and vehicle B substantially coincide at areaCP inthe collision area, as shown by point 7441 in FIG. 74. The time to clearthe collision area may be the time for a vehicle to travel from areaCPto a point at which the entire vehicle has exited the collision area.The time to clear may be equivalent to the time for vehicleLP (e.g.,point 7417 in FIG. 74) to reach areaLP (e.g., point 7431 in FIG. 74)starting at the time of the collision.

In an embodiment, the time to clear may include two portions. A firstportion may be the time for the collision point, vehicleCP, (e.g., point7421 in FIG. 74) to exit the collision area starting from the time ofthe collision. A second portion may be the time for vehicleLP to exitthe collision area starting from the time that vehicleCP exits thecollision area. The time for the vehicle to clear the collision area maybe the sum of the two portions.

In accident type 4 or 5, as shown in FIG. 4, the collision lane for theturning car, vehicle B, is the same as the lane that it is targeting.Consequently, neither vehicle A nor vehicle B may clear the collisionarea. The time to clear may then be set to a relatively high value, forexample, 1000 seconds.

A method for estimating the time for vehicle A to clear the collisionarea is depicted in the flow chart in FIG. 91. A diagram depictingvehicle A clearing the collision area is given in FIGS. 92 a and 92 b.The method may include estimating 9101 a distance from areaCP to theedge of collision area, which is GH in FIGS. 92 a and 92 b.

The distance from vehicleCP to vehicleLP, which is HI in FIGS. 92 a and92 b, may then be estimated 9103. The total distance to clear thecollision area may be estimated 9105 by:d _(clear) =GH+HIGH may be estimated from:GH=max(areaLPx, areaFPx)−A areaCPxHI is the distance from vehicleCP to vehicleLP and may be determinedusing Table 4.

The method may include estimating 9107 the time to clear, t_(Aclear),from total distance to clear. If the action of vehicle A prior to theaccident was constant speed or slowing, then the time to clear may bet _(Aclear) =d _(clear) /v ₀

If the action of vehicle A prior to the accident was accelerating from astop then, the time to clear may be estimated from d_(clear), theinitial speed at point G in FIGS. 92 a and 92 b (v_(G)), and a_(A). Forexample, the timeToTravel function may be used. v_(G) may be estimatedfrom distance EG, v₀, a_(A), and v_(MC). The timeToTravel function mayalso be used to estimate v_(G). Distance EG may be estimated by themethod depicted in FIG. 88 at step 8811.

A method for determining the time for vehicle B to clear the collisionarea is depicted in FIG. 93. The method may apply if vehicle B is thereference vehicle and the reaction of vehicle B prior to the accident isbraking from accelerating or continuing from accelerating. The methodmay include estimating 9301 a distance from vehicleCP at start tovehicleCP at areaCP (EG on FIG. 87 a). If vehicle B is the referencevehicle, EG is estimated at step 8811 in FIG. 88. If vehicle B is thereacting vehicle, thenEG=EF _(RV) +FG _(RV)Distances EF_(RV) and FG_(RV) may be determined using the methoddepicted in FIG. 90.

The time for vehicle B to travel EG may then be estimated 9303. Ifvehicle B is the reference vehicle, t_(EG) is estimated at step 8813 inFIG. 88. If vehicle B is the reacting vehicle, then t_(EG) may becalculated from the initial velocity, acceleration, maximum curvaturevelocity, and the final velocity of vehicle B, for example:t _(EG)=timeToTravel(EG, v ₀ , B's a _(A) , v _(MC) , v _(G))

The method may further include estimating 9305 a distance from vehicleLPat the start point to vehicleLP at areaLP along the LP trajectory. Forexample, the distance may be estimated as the arc length along the LPcurve from the start of the curve to areaLP and the distance from thestart point to the start of the curve. For example, if the curve is aportion of an ellipse:d _(Lp)=arclength(LP, B's vehicleLP x ES, areaLPx)+D _(SP to ES)

The time for vehicle B to travel the distance from vehicleLP at start tovehicleLP at areaLP (t_(LP)) may then be estimated 9307 from the initialvelocity, acceleration, and maximum curvature velocity. For example,t _(LP)=timeToTravel(d _(LP) , v ₀ , B's a _(A) , v _(MC) , v _(areaLP))The time for vehicle B to clear the collision area may be estimated 9309fromt _(Bclear) =t _(LP) −t _(EG)

Alternatively, if vehicle B is the reacting vehicle and the reaction ofvehicle B prior to the accident is braking from a constant speed, thenthe distance to clear may be estimated from the arc length along the LPcurve from areaCPx to areaLPx plus the distance from vehicleCP tovehicleLPd _(clear)=arclength(LP, areaCPx, areaLPx)+abs(vehicleCP−vehicleLP)The time to clear may be calculated from D_(clear), the initialvelocity, acceleration, and maximum curve velocity, for example,t _(Bclear)=timeToTravel(d _(clear) , v ₀ , B's a _(A) , v _(MC) , v_(areaLP))

An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distance ofvehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart in FIG.72 may also include estimating 7213 a time for a reacting vehicle totravel to the collision area such that the vehicle avoids an accidentwith a reference vehicle. The time may be estimated using the time forthe reference vehicle to clear the collision area. FIG. 94 depicts aflow chart of an embodiment of a method for estimating a time for areacting vehicle to avoid the accident. The method may includeestimating 9401 the distance from the perception point, point C in FIG.87, to the collision area, to point D in FIG. 87. Distance CD may beestimated from distance AC and distance AD:CD _(RV) =AD _(RV) −AC _(RV)Distance AC_(RV) may be estimated using the time for the reactingvehicle to travel EF_(RV). If the reacting vehicle accelerated from astop, then the time to travel EF_(RV) may betimeToTravel=(EF _(RV), accel=yes, v ₀ , v _(MC) , V _(F))If vehicle B's action prior to the accident was constant speed orslowing then the time to travel EF_(RV) may betimeToTravel=(EF _(RV), accel=no, v ₀ , v _(MC) , V _(F))Since the reacting vehicle's t_(EF) is the same as the reactingvehicle's t_(AC), thenAC _(RV) =t _(AC) v ₀+½a _(A) t _(AC) ²AD_(RV) for vehicle A when vehicle A accelerates from a stop may begiven by min(areaFPx, areaLPx)−Start vehicle12 xFor vehicle B, AD_(RV) may be given by:AD _(RV)=arclength(FP, vehicleFPx ES, areaFPx)+D _(SP to ES)

Distance CD may then be estimated. For vehicle A that has constant speedor is slowing before the accidentCD _(RV) =FG _(RV)−(areaCP x−min(areaFPx, areaLP x)−distance fromvehicle12 to impact point)For a vehicle A that is not at constant speed or is slowing before theaccident and vehicle BCD _(RV) =AD _(RV) −AC _(RV)

The method may also include estimating 9403 the time (t₁) for thereacting vehicle to travel CD_(RV). t₁ may correspond to the actual timefor the reacting vehicle to travel from the perception point to thecollision area. t₁ may be based on the reactions of the reacting vehicleprior to the accident. For example, if the reaction is braking from aconstant speed, then ti is the solution to the quadratic equation:V ₀ t _(PR) +V ₀ t ₁−½a _(B) t ₁ ² =CDIf the reacting vehicle was braking from accelerating, it may bedesirable to estimate the distance the vehicle travels during theperception-reaction time to the braking point (d₁) and the distancetraveled during braking to point D, d₂. d₁ may be given by:d ₁ =v _(c) t _(PR)+½a _(A) t _(PR) ²It may be advantageous to estimate the speed of the vehicle when itarrives at the braking pointv ₂=(t _(AC) +t _(PR))a _(A)d₂, may also be estimated from CD and d₁d ₂ =CD−d ₁If d₂ is less then the nominal stopping distance, then t₁ is equal tothe perception reaction-time and the time to travel d₂:t ₁ =t _(PR+timeToTravel() d ₂, acceleration, V ₂ , −a _(B) , V _(D))where the nominal stopping distance is V₂ ²/(2*C_(f)*g).

If d₂ is greater than or equal to the nominal stopping distance it maybe likely that the vehicle may have come to a complete stop prior to theaccident if the vehicle had braked as hard as possible when the averagedriver would have recognized danger. It may be likely that the reportedspeed of the vehicle was incorrect, the vehicle did not use full brakingforce, and/or the vehicle did not notice the other vehicle in areasonable amount of time.

If the vehicle reaction is continuing from a constant speed, thent ₁=timeToTravel(CD, acceleration, v ₀ , v _(MC) , v _(D))If the vehicle reaction is continuing from accelerating, thent ₁=timeToTravel(CD, acceleration, v _(C) , a _(A) , v _(MC) , v _(D))

The method may further include estimating 9405 the time (t_(x)) for thereacting vehicle to travel distance CD to avoid the accident. t_(x) maybe the time for the reacting vehicle to reach a collision area after thereference vehicle clears the collision area. In one embodiment, t_(x)may be the sum of the actual time for the reacting vehicle to traveldistance CD and the amount of time for the reference vehicle to clearthe collision area:Vehicle A, t _(x) =t ₁ +t _(Bclear), where t ₁ is for vehicle AVehicle B, t _(x) =t ₁ +t _(Aclear), where t ₁ is for vehicle Bt_(Aclear), may be estimated in the method depicted in FIG. 91 at step9107. t_(Bclear), may be estimated in the method depicted in FIG. 93 atstep 9309. t_(x) may be used to assess whether the reacting vehicle mayhave avoided the accident.

An embodiment of a method of using the speed, time, and distance ofvehicles for assessing liability illustrated by the flow chart in FIG.72 may also include assessing 7215 an opportunity of the reactingvehicle to avoid the accident. A method may include selecting aspecified speed of a vehicle involved in an accident. A specified speedmay be, for example, the actual speed of a vehicle, the speed limit forthe vehicle, or the safe speed for the vehicle. The method may alsoinclude assessing whether the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid theaccident at the specified speed. In one embodiment, the vehicle may havethe opportunity to avoid the accident by stopping before the accident.In another embodiment, the vehicle may have the opportunity to avoid theaccident by delaying at the specified speed of the vehicle. In otherembodiments, the vehicle may have the opportunity to avoid the accidentby maintaining the specified speed of the vehicle. In addition, thevehicle may attempt to avoid the accident by braking.

In an embodiment, the method may include assessing an effect onliability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident. The effect onliability may include a factor including a contribution to liabilitybased on the specified speed of the vehicle. In addition, the effect onliability may include a factor including a contribution based anoutcome. The outcome may include whether the vehicle had the opportunityto stop, delay, or maintain the specified speed to avoid the accident.The effect on liability may also include a contribution including afactor based on whether the vehicle reacted by braking to avoid theaccident. For example, Table 7 lists factor shifts in liabilityaccording to one embodiment corresponding to the specified speed,reaction, and outcome. Experienced claims adjusters may estimate thefactor shift values. The total factor shift from the opportunity toavoid may be the sum of the specified speed factor shift, the reactionfactor shift, and the outcome factor shift.

TABLE 7 CONTRIBUTION TO LIABILITY FROM OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID FactorFactor Specified Shift Shift Factor Shift Speed (%) Reaction (%) Outcome(%) Actual 5 No Braking 5 Stop 5 Speed Limit 3 Braking 0 Maintain 3 Safe0 — — Delay 1

FIG. 95 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingthe opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident. The methodmay include estimating 9501 a speed for avoiding an accident. A “speedfor avoiding” may be an approximate speed that allows a reacting vehiclean opportunity to avoid the accident. A vehicle may have an opportunityto avoid an accident between the perception point and the collision area(distance CD in FIG. 87). In one embodiment, a speed for avoiding may bean approximate maximum speed of a vehicle such that the vehicle avoidsthe accident by stopping before the accident (Speed_(ToStop)). In such asituation, a vehicle may be traveling at the Speed_(ToStop) and thenbrakes to stop before the accident. A speed for avoiding may alsoinclude an approximate maximum speed to avoid an accident by maintaininga constant rate of speed (Speed_(MaintainToDelay)). In addition, speedfor avoiding may be an approximate maximum speed to avoid an accident bybraking without stopping (Speed_(BrakeToDelay)).

Furthermore, the method may also include providing 9503 a specifiedspeed of a vehicle involved in an accident. The speed for avoiding maybe compared 9505 to the specified speed.

In certain embodiments, the method may further include assessing 9507the ability of the vehicle to avoid the accident based on thecomparison. An affect on liability may be assessed 9509 based on theability of the vehicle to avoid the accident.

In one embodiment, the Speed_(ToStop) for a reacting vehicle may beobtained from the total time to stop. The total time to stop may be thesum of the perception-reaction time and the time to braket _(Stop) =t _(PR) +t _(Brake)If the perception-reaction time is greater than t_(x), the time for areference vehicle to clear the collision area, the reacting vehiclewould not have the opportunity to brake. In this case, theSpeed_(ToStop) may not be determined. If the perception-reaction time isless than t_(x), then the Speed_(ToStop) may be given bySpeed_(ToStop)=(t _(x) −t _(PR))*a _(B)where a_(B) is the acceleration due to braking.

In an embodiment, Speed_(MaintainToDelay) may be obtained fromSpeed_(MaintainToDelay)=Distance Traveled/Time spent at Constant Rate ofSpeedIt follows that Speed_(MaintainToDelay) may be given bySpeed_(MaintainToDelay) =CD/t _(x)where distance CD is from FIG. 87. In some embodiments, theSpeed_(BrakeToDelay) may be obtained using a formula for the totalstopping distanceD _(Total) =d _(PR) +d _(NominalStop)where d_(PR) (=Speed_(BrakeToDelay)*t_(PR)) is the distance traveledduring the perception-reaction time andd _(NominalStop)=Speed_(BrakeToDelay)*(t _(x) −t _(PR))−½/a _(B)(t _(x)−t _(PR))²)If the perception-reaction time is greater than t_(x), a vehicle wouldnot have the opportunity to brake, and the Speed_(BrakeToDelay) may notbe determined. The Speed_(BrakeToDelay) may be given bySpeed_(BrakeToDelay) =CD/t _(x) +a _(B)(t _(x) −t _(PR))²/2t _(x)

Table 8 lists assessments of the opportunity to avoid an accident basedon comparisons of a specified speed of a reacting vehicle to speed foravoiding. Each case in Table 8 includes a comparison of a specifiedspeed to a speed for avoiding, whether the vehicle attempted to avoidthe accident by braking, and outcome of avoiding the accident. Each casemay be associated with a contribution to liability. The contribution toliability may be based on the specified speed, braking, and/or themanner of avoiding the accident.

In an embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle may havebeen able to stop before the accident at actual speed. Cases 1 and 2 aresituations in which the actual speed is less than the Speed_(ToStop).For case 1, it may be likely that the vehicle may have come to acomplete stop prior to the accident if the vehicle had braked as hard aspossible when the average driver would have recognized danger. Theaccident may have occurred because the reported speed of the vehicle maybe incorrect, the vehicle may not have used full braking force, and/orthe vehicle may not have noticed the other vehicle in a reasonableamount of time. In case 2, it may also be likely that the vehicle mayhave come to a complete stop if the vehicle had braked as hard aspossible when the average driver would have recognized danger.

In other embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave been able to delay enough to avoid the accident by braking at theactual speed. Cases 3 and 4 are situations in which the actual speed isless than or equal to Speed_(BrakeToDelay). In case 3, it may be likelythat the vehicle may have delayed enough to avoid the accident if thevehicle had braked as hard as possible when the average driver wouldhave recognized danger. The accident may have occurred because thereported speed of the vehicle may be incorrect, the vehicle may not haveused full braking force, and/or the vehicle may not have recognized theother vehicle in a reasonable amount of time. In case 4, it may belikely that the vehicle may have delayed enough to avoid the accident ifthe vehicle had braked as hard as possible when the average driver wouldhave recognized danger.

In one embodiment, an assessment of whether a vehicle may have avoidedan accident may be based on whether the vehicle was accelerating from astop prior to the accident. If the vehicle was accelerating from a stop,it may be determined if t_(x)>t_(PR). If t_(x)>t_(PR) it may be likelythe vehicle may not have avoided the accident even if the vehicle hadrecognized the accident when the average driver would have and had usedfull braking force. If the reaction of the vehicle was braking, then thetotal shift in liability to the vehicle may be substantially zero. Ifthe reaction of the vehicle was not braking, there may be a shift inliability to the vehicle, for example, about 10%.

Alternatively, if t_(x)is less than or equal to t_(PR), then it may belikely the vehicle may not have avoided the accident even if the vehiclehad recognized the accident when the average driver would have and hadused full breaking force. The shift in liability may be substantiallyzero.

In some embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave been able to stop before the accident at the speed limit. Cases 5and 6 are situations in which the speed limit is less than or equal toSpeed_(ToStop). In case 5, if the vehicle had been traveling at thespeed limit, it may be likely that the vehicle may have come to acomplete stop if full braking force were applied when the average driverwould have recognized and reacted to the other vehicle. In case 6, itmay be likely that the vehicle may have come to a complete stop had thevehicle used full braking force when the average driver would haverecognized and reacted to the other vehicle.

In another embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave delayed enough to avoid the accident by maintaining the speedlimit. Cases 7 and 8 are situations in which the speed limit is lessthan or equal to Speed_(MaintainToDelay). In case 7, if the vehicle hadbeen traveling at the speed limit, it may be likely that the accidentmay have been avoided, even without braking. In case 8, if the vehiclehad been traveling at the speed limit, it may be likely that theaccident would have been avoided.

In certain embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave been able to delay enough to avoid the accident by braking at thespeed limit. Cases 9 and 10 are situations in which the speed limit isless than or equal to Speed_(BrakeToDelay). In cases 9 and 10, if thevehicle had been traveling at the speed limit, it may be likely that theaccident may have been avoided if the vehicle had used full brakingforce when the average driver would have recognized and reacted to theother vehicle.

In one embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle may havebeen able to stop before the accident at the safe speed. Cases 11 and 12are situations in which the safe speed is less than or equal toSpeed_(SpeedToStop). In cases 11 and 12, the vehicle may not haveavoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle had beentraveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the vehicle may havecome to a complete stop had the vehicle used full braking force when theaverage driver would have recognized and reacted to the other vehicle.

In an embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle may havebeen able to delay enough to avoid the accident by maintaining the safespeed. Cases 13 and 14 are situations in which the safe speed is lessthan or equal to Speed_(MaintainToDelay). In case 13, the vehicle maynot have avoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle hadbeen traveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the accident mayhave been avoided, even without braking. In case 14, the vehicle may nothave avoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle had beentraveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the accident may havebeen avoided.

In some embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave been able to delay enough to avoid by braking at the safe speed.Cases 15 and 16 are situations in which the safe speed is less than orequal to Speed_(BrakeToDelay). In cases 15 and 16, the vehicle may nothave avoided the accident at the speed limit. If the vehicle had beentraveling at the safe speed, it may be likely that the accident may havebeen avoided if the vehicle had used full braking force, when theaverage driver would have recognized and reacted to the other vehicle.

Cases 17, 18, and 19 are situations in which the safe speed is greaterthan the Speed_(BrakeToDelay). Cases 17 and 18 correspond to situationsin which t_(x)>t_(PR). For both cases 17 and 18, it may be unlikely thatthe vehicle could have avoided the accident at its actual speed, speedlimit, or even the safe speed for conditions. Case 19 corresponds to asituation in which t_(x)is greater than or equal to t_(PR). For case 19,it may be unlikely that the vehicle may have avoided the accident at itsactual speed, speed limit, or even the safe speed for conditions.

TABLE 8 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE Factor Shift Case SpeedComparison Braking Outcome (%) 1 Actual Speed ≦ Speed_(ToStop) Yes Stop10 2 Actual Speed ≦ Speed_(ToStop) No Stop 15 3 Actual Speed ≦Speed_(BrakeToDelay) Yes Delay 6 4 Actual Speed ≦ Speed_(BrakeToDelay)No Delay 11 5 Speed Limit ≦ Speed_(ToStop) Yes Stop 5 6 Speed Limit ≦Speed_(ToStop) No Stop 13 7 Speed Limit ≦ Speed_(MaintainToDelay) YesMaintain 6 8 Speed Limit ≦ Speed_(MaintainToDelay) No Maintain 11 9Speed Limit ≦ Speed_(BrakeToDelay) Yes Delay 4 10 Speed Limit ≦Speed_(BrakeToDelay) No Delay 9 11 Safe Speed ≦ Speed_(SpeedToStop) YesStop 5 12 Safe Speed ≦ Speed_(SpeedToStop) No Stop 10 13 Safe Speed ≦Speed_(MaintainToDelay) Yes Maintain 3 14 Safe Speed ≦Speed_(MaintainToDelay) No Maintain 8 15 Safe Speed ≦Speed_(BrakeToDelay) Yes Delay 1 16 Safe Speed ≦ Speed_(BrakeToDelay) NoDelay 6 17 Safe Speed > Speed_(BrakeToDelay) Yes Delay — and t_(x) >t_(PR) 18 Safe Speed > Speed_(BrakeToDelay) No Delay — and t_(x) >t_(PR) 19 Safe Speed > Speed_(BrakeToDelay) — Delay — and t_(x) ≦ t_(PR)

In one embodiment, liability in an accident may be assessed from anestimated actual speed of a vehicle. FIG. 96 depicts a flow chart of anembodiment of a method of using a computer system for assessingliability in an accident using the estimated actual speed of a vehicle.The method may include estimating 9601 an actual speed of a vehicle inan accident. At least one specified speed of the vehicle may be provided9603 to the computer system. A specified speed may include a safe speedfor a vehicle for the conditions at the scene of the accident or a speedlimit for the vehicle. The method may further include comparing 9605 theactual speed to at least one specified speed. An effect on liability maythen be assessed 9607 based on the comparison. The actual speed may, insome embodiments, be used to assess the liability of a straight vehicle(vehicle A) or a turning vehicle (vehicle B).

In one embodiment, a comparison may include determining an excess of theactual speed over a specified speed. For example, the relative amountthat the actual speed of a vehicle exceeds the speed limit (percentexcess) for the vehicle may be given byS _(LimitExcess)=(Actual Speed−Speed Limit)/Speed Limit*100%Similarly, the relative amount that the actual speed of a vehicleexceeds the safe speed for the vehicle may be given byS _(SafeExcess)=(Actual Speed−Safe Speed)/Safe speed*100%

In an embodiment, the safe speed may depend on the conditions of theroad at the scene of an accident. For example, if the road conditionsare dry, then the safe speed may be the same as the speed limit.Alternatively, if the conditions are not dry, the safe speed may becalculated from the nominal dry stopping distance of a vehicle. Thenominal dry stopping distance may be given byNominal dry stopping distance=(Speed Limit)²/(2×dry C _(f) ×g)where dry C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between a vehicle and adry road and g is the gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s²). The safespeed may then be calculated fromSafe speed=[2*actual C _(f) *g*nominal dry stopping distance]^(1/2)where actual C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between the vehicleand the road at the scene of the accident.

In certain embodiments, the coefficient of friction may depend on theroad condition and road surface. Table 9 lists values of the coefficientof friction for various road conditions and road surfaces. In otherembodiments, the coefficient of friction may also be a function ofspeed. Table 10 lists values of the coefficient of friction for variousroad surfaces, road conditions, and speeds.

TABLE 9 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION FOR VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES AND ROADCONDITIONS Road Condition Road Surface Coefficient of Friction DryConcrete 0.70 Dry Asphalt 0.68 Dry Gravel 0.70 Dry Dirt 0.50 WetConcrete 0.58 Accumulated Water Concrete 0.58 During Heavy Rain MuddyConcrete 0.58 Wet Asphalt 0.58 Accumulated Water Asphalt 0.58 DuringHeavy Rain Muddy Asphalt 0.58 Wet Gravel 0.60 Accumulated Water Gravel0.60 During Heavy Rain Muddy Gravel 0.60 Wet Dirt 0.40 Accumulated WaterDirt 0.40 During Heavy Rain Muddy Dirt 0.40 Accumulated Snow - Dry NotConsidered 0.18 Accumulated Snow - Wet Not Considered 0.45 HardpackedSnow - Dry Not Considered 0.43 Hardpacked Snow - Wet Not Considered 0.45Ice Patches Not Considered 0.16 Ice Not Considered 0.16 Black Ice NotConsidered 0.08

TABLE 10 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION FOR VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES AND ROADCONDITIONS DRY WET Less than More than Less than Description of 30 MPH30 MPH 30 MPH More than 30 MPH Road Surface From-To From-To From-ToFrom-To CONCRETE New, sharp  .80-1.20 .70-1.0 .50-.80 .40-.75 Traveled.60-.80 .60-.75 .45-.70 .45-.65 Polished .55-.75 .50-.65 .45-.65 .45-.60ASPHALT New, Sharp  .80-1.20 .65-1.0 .50-.80 .45-.75 Travelled .60-.80.55-.70 .45-.70 .40-.65 Polished .55-.75 .45-.65 .45-.65 .40-.60 ExcessTar .50-.60 .35-.60 .30-.60 .25-.55 GRAVEL Packed, Oiled .55-.85 .50-.80.40-.80 .40-.60 Loose .40-.70 .40-.70 .45-.75 .45-.75 CINDERS Packed.50-.70 .50-.70 .65-.75 .65-.75 ROCK Crushed .55-.75 .55-.75 .55-.75.55-.75 ICE Smooth .10-.25 .07-.20 .05-.10 .05-.10 SNOW Packed .30-.55.35-.55 .30-.60 .30-.60 Loose .10-.25 .10-.20 .30-.60 .30-.60

In certain embodiments, liability assessment may be based on the percentexcess of the actual speed over the speed limit or safe speed,S_(LimitExcess) or S_(SafeExcess), respectively. For example, acontribution to liability may be associated with at least one range ofpercent excess of the actual speed over the speed limit or safe speed.The contribution to liability may be referred to as a “raw speedfactor.” The raw speed factor may shift the liability for a vehiclebased on the percent excess of the actual speed. In one embodiment, amaximum shift value may be associated with a range of percent excess.

In one embodiment, the raw speed factor may be estimated by multiplyinga raw speed multiplier by a maximum shift value. The “raw speedmultiplier” may be provided by an experienced claims adjuster. The“maximum shift value” may be a maximum shift in liability due to thespeed of a vehicle that would be contemplated by an experienced claimsadjuster. Table 11 lists ranges of percent excess of the actual speedover the speed limit or safe speed for a vehicle. Table 11 also lists amaximum liability shift for each of the ranges of percent excessaccording to one embodiment.

TABLE 11 RANGES OF PERCENT EXCESS OF ACTUAL SPEED OVER THE SPEED LIMITOR SAFE SPEED AND MAXIMUM LIABILITY SHIFTS S_(LimitExcess) orS_(SafeExcess) (%) Maximum Shift (%)  0-10 0 11-20 0 21-30 5 31-40 1041-50 20 51-60 30 61-75 30  76-100 40 101+ 50

In an embodiment, liability assessment may be based on a comparison ofactual speed and the speed limit for the vehicle. For example, if theactual speed is greater than the speed limit, then S_(limitExcess) maybe calculated. A shift in liability may then be assessed based onS_(limitExcess).

In other embodiments, liability assessment may be based on a comparisonof the actual speed with the safe speed for the vehicle. For example, ifthe actual speed is greater than the safe speed, then S_(SafeExcess),may be calculated. A shift in liability may then be assessed based onS_(SafeExcess).

In one embodiment, S_(SafeExcess) may be calculated if the actual speedis greater than or equal to the safe speed and the actual speed is lessthan or equal to the speed limit. A shift in liability may then beassessed based on S_(limitExcess).

In an embodiment, if the actual speed is less than the safe speed andthe speed limit, then no shift in liability may be assessed to avehicle.

FIG. 97 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingthe opportunity of a reacting vehicle to avoid an accident. The methodmay apply if the reaction of vehicle A and vehicle B before an accidentwas braking from a constant rate of speed or braking from accelerating.The method may include estimating 9701 at least one stopping distance ofa vehicle. A stopping distance may refer to an approximate distance fora reacting vehicle to stop to avoid the accident. For example, thestopping distance may be an approximate distance to stop for a vehicletraveling at a specified speed. The specified speed may include anactual speed of the vehicle, a speed limit for the vehicle, or the safespeed for the vehicle.

In an embodiment, the method may also include estimating 9703 aperception distance. A perception distance may refer to an approximatedistance from the accident at which the driver of a reacting vehiclesubstantially sensed danger of an accident. In an embodiment, theperception distance may be provided in units of vehicle length. Theability of the vehicle to avoid the accident may then be assessed 9705using the perception distance. The method may further include assessing9707 an effect on liability of the ability of the vehicle to avoid theaccident.

In one embodiment, the stopping distance for a vehicle traveling at anactual speed may be obtained from a nominal stopping distance and theperception distance (D_(PR))D _(StopActual)=Nominal Stopping Distance+t _(PR)*Actual SpeedwhereNominal Stopping Distance=[Actual Speed]²/(2*actual C _(f) *g)The stopping distance at actual speed (D_(StopActual)) may then be givenby:D _(StopActual)=([Actual Speed]²/(2*actual C _(f) *g))+ActualSpeed*t_(PR)where C_(f) is the coefficient of friction between the vehicle and theroad. Similarly, the stopping distance at a speed limit (D_(StopLimit))may be given by:D _(StopLimit)=([Speed Limit]²/(2*actual C _(f) *g))+Speed Limit*t_(PR)The stopping distance at a safe speed (D_(StopSafe)) may be given byD _(StopSafe)=([Safe Speed]²/(2*actual C _(f) *g))+Safe Speed*t_(PR)

In certain embodiments, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave stopped before the accident at actual speed. Table 12 includescomparisons of stopping distances to perception distances. Case 20 inTable 12 refers to a situation in which the stopping distance at theactual speed is less than the perception distance. In this case, it maybe likely that the vehicle may have come to a complete stop if thevehicle had braked with full force when the other vehicle was firstnoticed.

In another embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle mayhave stopped before the accident at the speed limit. Case 21 refers to asituation in which the stopping distance at the speed limit is less thanthe perception distance. In this case, it may be likely that the vehiclemay have come to a complete stop and avoided the accident.

In one embodiment, an assessment may include whether a vehicle may havestopped before the accident at the safe speed. Case 22 refers to asituation in which the stopping distance at the safe speed is less thanthe perception distance. In this case, it may be likely that the vehiclemay have come to a complete stop and avoided the accident. Case 23refers to a situation in which the stopping distance at the safe speedis greater than or equal to the perception distance. In this case, itmay be likely that the vehicle's speed did not play a significant rolein the accident.

TABLE 12 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE Factor Case Comparison SpeedShift (%) 20 Is [D_(StopActual)] < [Perception Distance] Actual 10 21 Is[D_(StopLimit)] < [Perception Distance] Limit 8 22 Is [D_(StopSafe)] <[Perception Distance] Safe 5 23 Is [D_(StopSafe)] ≧ [PerceptionDistance] Safe —

As shown in FIGS. 75 e and 75 g, vehicle B, the turning vehicle may notclear a collision area in some embodiments of accident types 4 and 5.Therefore, the time (t_(x)) for the reacting vehicle to travel distanceCD in FIG. 87 may not be useful for assessing whether a reacting vehiclemay avoid an accident. FIGS. 75 e and 75 g correspond to embodiments ofaccident types 4 and 5, respectively, in which the collision lane is thesame as the target lane for vehicle B.

FIG. 98 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingwhether a straight vehicle (vehicle A) may avoid an accident foraccident types illustrated in FIGS. 75 e and 75 g. Assessments made inFIG. 98 are summarized in TABLE 13. The method may include estimating9801 the time for vehicle B to substantially complete a turn (t_(E)).Vehicle B is depicted at the completion of a turn by diagram 7533 inFIG. 75 e or diagram 7539 in FIG. 75 g. The distance traveled by vehicleB during time t_(E) may be from the perception point (point C in FIG.87) to the intended end position of vehicle B estimated by the methodshown in FIG. 77. The intended end position may represent the positionof vehicle B at the completion of a turn. t_(E) may be compared 9803 tothe perception-reaction time (t_(PR)) of vehicle A. If t_(E) is lessthan or equal to t_(PR), then there is no time for vehicle A to brake toavoid colliding with vehicle B. Assessments 9805 may be made of theopportunity of vehicle A to avoid the accident. Cases 24 and 25 in Table13 may correspond to assessments 9805. For cases 24 and 25, it may belikely that the vehicle's speed did not play a significant role in theaccident.

TABLE 13 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE A FOR CASES IN WHICH VEHICLE BDOES NOT CLEAR THE COLLISION AREA Case Speed Reaction Factor Shift (%)24 Not applicable Braking 0 25 Not applicable No Braking 5 24b SafeSpeed Braking 0 25b Safe Speed No Braking 5 26 Speed Limit Braking 3 27Speed Limit Not Braking 8 28 Safe Speed Braking 0 29 Safe Speed NoBraking 5

TABLE 14 ASSESSMENT OF REACTING VEHICLE B FOR CASES IN WHICH VEHICLE BDOES NOT CLEAR THE COLLISION AREA Case Speed Reaction Factor Shift (%)30 Actual Speed Braking 5 31 Actual Speed Not Braking 10 32 Safe SpeedBraking 0 33 Safe Speed Not Braking 5 34 Safe Speed — 0

Alternatively, if t_(E) greater than t_(PR), then the opportunity forvehicle A to avoid the accident may be assessed for at least onespecified speed of vehicle A. A specified speed may include, but is notlimited to, the speed limit for vehicle A or the safe speed for vehicleA. In one embodiment, an assessment may be carried out using the speedlimit of vehicle A if the speed limit of vehicle A is less than theactual speed of vehicle A. In addition, an assessment may be carried outusing the safe speed of vehicle A if the safe speed of vehicle A is lessthan the speed limit and actual speed of vehicle A.

In certain embodiments, assessing the opportunity of vehicle A to avoidthe accident may include estimating 9807 the position of vehicle A aftertraveling for time t_(E) at a specified speed. The position of vehicle Bafter time t_(E) may be the intended end position estimated in FIG. 77.The positions of vehicle A and vehicle B may be compared 9809 todetermine whether the vehicles may be clear of one another. The positionof the front of vehicle A may be compared to the position of the rear ofvehicle B. For example, the position of the front of vehicle A may bethe x coordinate of vehicleFP of vehicle A. Similarly, the position ofthe rear of vehicle B may be the x coordinate of vehicleLP of vehicle B.In some embodiments, vehicle A and vehicle B may be considered to beclear and not to have collided if the x coordinate of the position ofthe front of vehicle A is less than the x coordinate of the position ofthe rear of vehicle B. In other embodiments, a buffer may be used todefine when a collision may have occurred. For example, vehicle A andvehicle B may be considered to be clear and not to have collided if thex coordinate of the position of the front of vehicle A minus a buffervalue is less than the x coordinate of the position of the rear ofvehicle B. The buffer value may be, for example, a half a vehiclelength.

In one embodiment, if vehicle A and vehicle B are not clear and havecollided 9809, assessments may be performed 9811 regarding theopportunity for vehicle A to avoid the accident. For example, if thespecified speed is the safe speed of vehicle A, an assessment may bemade. If vehicle A was braking from accelerating or braking from aconstant rate then case 24 b may apply. If vehicle A was not brakingfrom accelerating or braking from a constant rate then case 25 b mayapply. It may be likely that vehicle A's speed did not play asignificant role in the accident. Alternatively, another specifiedspeed, lower than the previous specified speed, may be selected 9811 forassessment. The new assessment may begin at step 9807.

Furthermore, if it is determined that vehicle A and vehicle B are clearand have not collided, the velocity (v_(EB)) of vehicle B when itcompletes the turn may be estimated 9813. The velocity of vehicle A(v_(EA)) when vehicle B completes the turn may also be estimated 9813.v_(EA) and v_(EB) may then be compared 9815. If v_(EA) is less thanv_(EB), then assessments may be performed 9817. Cases 26 and 27 in Table13 may apply if the specified speed is the speed limit. Cases 28 and 29in Table 13 may apply if the specified speed is the safe speed. It maybe likely that vehicle A may avoid the accident if vehicle A wastraveling at the specified speed.

If v_(EA) is greater than v_(EB), vehicle A may become closer andcollide with vehicle B. The time spent (t_(SS)) by vehicle Baccelerating to a specified speed starting at the end of the turn maythen be estimated 9819. The specified speed may be, for example, thespeed limit of vehicle B or the safe speed of vehicle B. At decisionpoint 9821 it is determined whether t_(SS) is greater than 0. If t_(SS)is approximately zero, then vehicle B is already traveling approximatelyat its specified speed at the end of the turn. In this case, theposition of vehicle A and the position of vehicle B at the time vehicleA reaches the specified speed of vehicle B may be estimated 9823. Thepositions of vehicle A and vehicle B may then be compared 9825 todetermine whether the vehicles may be clear. The comparison may beperformed in a manner similar to that at step 9809.

In one embodiment, if it is determined at decision point 9825 thatvehicle A and vehicle B are clear, assessments may be performed 9829regarding the opportunity for vehicle A to avoid the accident. Cases 26and 27 in Table 13 may apply if the specified speed is the speed limit.Cases 28 and 29 in Table 13 may apply if the specified speed is the safespeed. In general, for these cases, it may be likely that vehicle A mayavoid the accident if vehicle A was traveling at the specified speed.

Furthermore, if vehicle A and vehicle B are not clear, assessments maybe performed 9827 and/or another specified speed may be selected. Forexample, if the specified speed is the safe speed of vehicle A, anassessment may be made. If vehicle A was braking from accelerating orbraking from a constant rate then case 24 may apply. If vehicle A wasnot braking from accelerating or braking from a constant rate of speedthen case 25 may apply. Alternatively, another specified speed forvehicle A, lower than the previous specified speed, may be selected 9827for assessment. The new assessment may begin at step 9807.

In one embodiment, if t_(SS) is greater than zero at decision point 9821the speed (V_(tSSA)) of vehicle A at the time that vehicle B reaches aspecified speed may be estimated 9831. V_(tSSA) may then be compared9833 to the specified speed of vehicle B (V_(SSB)) to determine whethervehicle A and vehicle B may collide. If v_(tSSA) is greater than thespecified speed for vehicle B, then it may be possible for vehicle A tobecome closer and collide with vehicle B. An assessment may be performed9835 and/or another specified speed for vehicle A may be selected. Cases25 and 26 may apply. It may be likely that vehicle A's speed did notplay a significant role in the accident. Alternatively, anotherspecified speed, lower than the previous specified speed, may beselected 9835 for an assessment. The new assessment may begin at step9807.

If v_(tSSA) is less than the specified speed for vehicle B at decisionpoint 9833, then an assessment may be performed 9837. It may be unlikelythat vehicle A would collide with vehicle B. Cases 26 and 27 in Table 13may apply if the specified speed is the speed limit. Cases 28 and 29 inTable 13 may apply if the specified speed is the safe speed. It may belikely that vehicle A may avoid the accident if vehicle A was travelingat the specified speed.

FIG. 99 depicts a flow chart of an embodiment of a method for assessingwhether a turning vehicle (vehicle B) may avoid an accident for accidenttypes illustrated in FIGS. 75 e and 75 g. The method may includeestimating 9901 a time (t_(new)) for a vehicle A to travel a specifieddistance from the perception point (point C in FIG. 87 a). The specifieddistance may be selected such that vehicle A is beyond the position ofvehicle B at the end of the turn. The specified distance may be, forexample, three vehicle lengths past the perception point. If vehicle Ais accelerating from a stop before the accident, thent _(new)=specified distance/v _(C)where v_(C) is the velocity of vehicle A at point C in FIG. 87 a. Ifvehicle A is at a constant speed or slowing before the accident, thent _(new)=specified distance/v₀where v₀ is the initial or constant speed of vehicle A. The method maythen include estimating 9903 a speed (v_(new)) of vehicle B to avoid anaccident with vehicle A. Such a speed may result in vehicle B at or nearthe end of its turn after vehicle A has passed. The speed may be givenby:v _(new) =CD (from FIG. 87 a)/t _(new)

The method may further include comparing 9905 v_(new) with the actualspeed of vehicle B. If v_(new) is greater than or equal to the actualspeed of B, then an assessment of whether vehicle B may have avoided theaccident may be performed 9907. Cases 30 and 31 in Table 14 may apply.It may be likely that vehicle B should have been able to avoid theaccident at the speed it was traveling.

If v_(new) is less than the actual speed of B, then v_(new) may becompared 9909 to the safe speed of B. If v_(new) is greater than orequal to the safe speed of B, then an assessment may be performed 9911.Cases 32 and 33 in Table 14 may apply. It may be likely that vehicle Bshould have been able to avoid the accident at the safe speed. Ifv_(new) is less than the safe speed of B, then case 34 in Table 14 mayapply 9913. It may be likely that vehicle B's speed did not play asignificant role in the accident.

In one embodiment, a total contribution to liability due to the speed ofa vehicle may include a combination of the raw speed factor shift andthe opportunity to avoid factor shift. The opportunity to avoid (OTA)shift may be obtained from the method depicted in FIG. 95 and Table 8,the method depicted in FIG. 97 and Table 12, or the method depicted inFIG. 98 and Tables 13 and 14. The raw speed shift may be obtained fromthe method depicted in FIG. 96 and Table 11. In some embodiments, thetotal speed factor shift may be given by:Total Speed factor shift=OTA Shift+Raw speed shiftIn other embodiments, the total speed factor shift may be limited by themaximum shift shown in Table 11. For example, the total speed factorshift may be given by the formula:Total Speed factor shift=OTA Shift*[(Start % +(100−Start %)* %Excess]/100+Raw Speed Shift% Excess may refer to S_(SafeExcess) or S_(LimitExcess). In oneembodiment, Start % may be about 20%.

In certain embodiments, a method may include providing a computer systemconfigured to access a memory. The memory may include a theoretical pathof at least one vehicle in an accident. The memory may also include acollision area. The theoretical path may be displayed as a graphicalimage in a graphical user interface. The method may further includedisplaying a collision area as a graphical image in a graphical userinterface. At least one vehicle may also be displayed as a graphicalimage in the graphical user interface.

FIG. 100 depicts images of an accident scene corresponding to accidenttype 3 on a graphical user interface. The figure illustrates trajectory10001 of the first vehicle point and trajectory 10003 of the lastvehicle point of a turning vehicle. A graphical image of the turningvehicle is shown at the start 10005 of the turn, just prior 10007 toentering collision area 10013, just after exiting 10009 collision area10013, and at the completion 10011 of the turn. A graphical image of thestraight vehicle is also shown prior to entering 10015 the intersection,just prior 10017 to entering collision area 10013, and just after 10019exiting collision area 10013.

As described herein, a user may provide claim data for one or moreclaims to a computer system regarding a vehicle accident in a graphicaluser interface, for example, see FIGS. 42-45 and FIGS. 47-64. The claimdata that is provided may be stored in a database associated with amethod and system for estimating liability in an accident such as @Faultdeveloped by Computer Sciences Corporation of El Segundo, Calif. Adatabase associated with claim reporting software may also include atleast some of the claim data for the one or more claims.

It may be advantageous in an embodiment to copy claim data from adatabase associated with the claim reporting software to a databaseassociated with a method and system for estimating liability in anaccident. In one embodiment, a method may include accessing claim datafor one or more claims relating to a vehicle accident from a firstdatabase on a computer system. The first database may be associated withclaim reporting software. In some embodiments, claim data for the one ormore claims may be accessed periodically following a user-defined timeperiod. For example, the user-defined time period may be daily, weekly,monthly, and yearly. The accessed claim data may be stored on a seconddatabase on the computer system. In some embodiments, the seconddatabase may be associated with a method and system for estimatingliability in a vehicle accident. In an embodiment, a communicationssoftware program may access the claim data from the first database andstore the claim data on the second database.

In some embodiments, the method may further include accessing claim datafor one or more of the claims on the second database for use by themethod and system for estimating liability in a vehicle accident. Forexample, a user of the method and system for estimating liability mayprompt the computer system to access claim data for one or more of theclaims in the second database.

FIG. 101 is an illustration of a system for copying claim data from onedatabase to another. Diagrams 5601, 5603, 5605, and 5607 representcomponents of the system and method that interact with one another.Arrows 5612, 5614, and 5616 represent the flow of data betweencomponents. Communications Software Program 5601 may access claim datafor one or more claims from Database for Claims Reporting Software 5603as shown by arrow 5612. The Communications Software Program may beconfigured to access the claims data on a periodic basis, for example,nightly. The number of claims accessed may be at least one, however,hundreds, thousands, or more may be accessed. The claim data of the oneor more claims may be transferred, as shown by arrow 5612, from Database5603 by the Communications Software Program. In some embodiments,Communications Software Program 5601 may be configured to convert claimdata stored in the format of Database 5603 to the format of Database5605. The claim data may then stored, as shown by arrow 5614, onDatabase for System and Method of Liability Estimation 5605. User 5607may then have access to the claim data for use by the system and methodfor estimating liability in an accident, as shown by arrow 5616.

In other embodiments, claim data for a claim relating to a vehicleaccident may be requested. For example, a user of the method and systemfor estimating liability may prompt the computer system to access claimdata of the claim. The claim data for the claim may be accessed from afirst database if the claim data for the claim is not stored on a seconddatabase. In an embodiment, the first database may be associated withclaim reporting software and the second database may be associated witha method and system for estimating liability in a vehicle accident. Theclaim data for the claim accessed from the first database may be storedon the second database on the computer system. The method may furtherinclude accessing the claim data for the claim on the second databasefor use by the method and system for estimating liability in a vehicleaccident.

FIG. 102 is another illustration of a system and method for copyingclaim data from one database to another. Diagrams 10201, 10203, 10205,and 10207 represent components of the system and method that interactwith one another. Arrows 10210, 10214, 10216, and 10218 represent theflow of information and data between components. User 10207 may issue arequest for claim data for a claim, as shown by arrow 10210, toCommunications Software Program 10201. Communications Software Program10201 may access claims data for the claim from Database for ClaimsReporting Software 10203 as shown by arrow 10214. The claim data for theclaim may be transferred, as shown by arrow 10214, from Database 10203by the Communications Software Program. The claim data may then stored,as shown by arrow 10216, on Database 10205 for System and Method ofLiability Estimation 10205. User 10207 may then have access to theclaim, as shown by arrow 10218.

It may be useful or necessary to communicate claim information relatingto liability determination performed by claims adjusters to otherparties in a claims organization. For example, claim information may besent for management review on a periodic basis. Alternatively,communication of claim information from a claims adjuster may becontingent upon specific conditions being met or satisfied. Generally,reporting such information periodically and identifying such conditionsmanually by a claims adjuster can be time consuming. In addition, suchmanual reporting may be inconsistent and unreliable. An alternative tomanual reporting of claim information may include a method ofautomatically preparing and sending pre-configured reports to managementpersonnel in a claims organization.

In one embodiment of a method of estimating liability, claim informationrequired by a pre-configured claim report may be accessed from adatabase if a user-specified condition is met. FIG. 103 depicts a flowchart illustrating accessing of claim information at step 10301. Duringa liability estimation process, claim information relating to anaccident may be entered and assessments may be made based on the claiminformation. Management personnel may desire to review the claiminformation and assessments if they meet certain conditions. Forexample, such conditions may include settlement liability within aparticular range, settlement liability less than a particular value,settlement liability greater than a particular value, settlementliability with a particular magnitude of discrepancy with an assignedliability, assignment of an absolute liability value, assignment of aparticular accident type, assignment of a particular roadwayconfiguration, assignment of a particular liability, assignment of aparticular range of liability, and assignment of a particular liabilityfor a particular factor. An assigned liability may be obtained from amethod for estimating liability in a vehicle accident, as describedherein.

In some embodiments, the database may be associated with a method forestimating liability in a vehicle accident such as @Fault developed byComputer Sciences Corporation of El Segundo, Calif. Claim informationrequired by the pre-configured claim report may include one or more ofthe following: names of parties, adjuster identification, claim number,jurisdiction, accident details, liability assigned to parties, liabilityrange assigned to parties, and discrepancy between assigned liabilityand settlement liability. A pre-configured claim report may then becreated that includes the required claim information as shown at step10303 in FIG. 103. In an embodiment, the claim report may be sent to auser-specified location as indicated at step 10305. For example, theuser-specified location may include an electronic mailbox or a printer.The electronic mailbox or printer may be associated with managementpersonnel.

In some embodiments, accessing the required claim information may beperformed by a business intelligence tool. In addition, a businessintelligence tool may also create the pre-configured claim report. A“business intelligence tool” is a software program that coordinates theactions of gathering, processing and distributing decision-makinginformation. In one embodiment, the software program “BusinessObjects”developed by Business Objects of San Jose, Calif. may be used. Ingeneral, BusinessObjects is a tool that allows users to access, analyze,and share information stored in multiple data sources. Users may createreports and analyze data with BusinessObjects. Data access softwareprograms in BusinessObjects may be configured to access specific typesof claim information from a database. In an embodiment, the data accessprograms may be represented by icons on the BusinessObjects desktopinterface on the display screen of a personal computer. A pre-configuredreport may include one or more of the data access programs.

FIG. 104 represents a schematic illustration of a system for creating apre-configured claim report. Diagram 10401 may represent a BusinessIntelligence tool such as BusinessObjects for creating a pre-configuredclaim report. Diagram 10403 may represent a database associated with asystem for estimating liability in a vehicle accident. A pre-configuredaccident report may be created by template 10405. Template 10405 mayinclude data access programs 10407, 10409, and 10411, which areprogrammed to access specific types of claim information from thedatabase. Arrows 10413 represent the access of the specific types ofclaim information from the database by the data access programs.

FIG. 105 is an illustration of a claim report generated due to auser-specified condition being met. The user-specified condition is adiscrepancy between an assigned liability and a settlement liabilitygreater than 20 percent. The title of Report 10501 is “Discrepancybetween Assigned Liability and Settlement Liability Greater than 20%.”Row 10503 identifies claim information included in the claim report. Row10505 includes the claim information for the claim that had thediscrepancy.

In another embodiment, claim information on a computer system requiredby a pre-configured claim report for an accident may be accessed from adatabase periodically following a user-specified time period. Theuser-specified time period may be daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly.The claim report may include claims with one or more characteristics.Management personnel may desire to view reports relating to claims, forinstance, that have been settled, settled within the user-specified timeperiod, claims within a particular range of settlement value, claimswith a particular assignment of liability, or claims with the assignmentof a particular range of liability. A claim report may then be createdand sent to a user-defined location. In an alternative embodiment, apre-configured claim report may be requested by a user.

FIG. 106 is a schematic illustration of a portion of a claim reportgenerated on a daily basis. Report 10601 with the title “Claims Settledon Jan. 28, 2002” is a periodic report generated on a daily basis. Thereport includes claim information on claims settled on Jan. 28, 2002.Row 10603 identifies claim information included in the claim report.Rows 10605 include the claim information for the claims that weresettled.

In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability in an accident mayinclude recording vehicle data of a vehicle relating to the accident inmemory on a computer system. The computer system may be located in thevehicle. For example, an airbag module may be configured to record thevehicle data. Vehicle data of a vehicle may include the pre-impactspeed, braking before the accident, engine speed before the accident,and throttle position before the accident. Engine speed may be measuredin revolutions per minute (RPM). “RPM” is the revolutions per minute atwhich the engine crankshaft of a vehicle turns whether a vehicle isstationary or in motion. In addition, vehicle data may includepost-accident change in velocity of the vehicle. The effect of thevehicle data on the liability of a party in the accident may then beestimated.

In one embodiment, the recorded vehicle data may be stored in a datafile on a computer system. Vehicle data may be stored if an event suchas an accident or sudden change in speed is detected by a sensor on thevehicle. In an embodiment, the stored vehicle data may be in a formatthat is not recognizable to general purpose computer software programs.Therefore, the recorded vehicle data may be decoded to a recognizableformat.

An embodiment may also include determining one or more properties fromthe vehicle data. The one or more properties may include, for example,distance traveled before the accident, distance traveled after braking,acceleration, point of impact, and angle of impact. The effect of theone or more properties on the liability of a party in the accident mayalso be estimated.

In an embodiment, the vehicle data and the one or more properties may beused to assess the influence of factors on liability. For example, thevehicle data and such properties may be relevant to factors related to adriver's actions: following too closely, driving at an unsafe speed, asudden stop or swerve, driving with taillights or brake lights off,unsafe backing, failure to take evasive action, and an improper lanechange.

In another embodiment, the method may include evaluating accuracy ofinformation relating to the accident provided by one or more sources.The data may be compared to corresponding properties provided ininformation from the one or more sources.

One embodiment for estimating liability from vehicle data and propertiesmay include a first computer system and a second computer system.Vehicle data may be recorded in memory and stored in a data file on afirst computer system. The vehicle data may then be retrieved from thefirst computer system with a second computer system.

The first computer system may be, for example, a vehicle's airbagsensing and diagnostic module. A second computer system may retrieve thevehicle data from the first computer system. After retrieval, the secondcomputer system may decode the data such that the decoded data may beaccessible to general purpose software programs. The method may furtherinclude estimating an effect of the data on the liability of a party. Insome embodiments, the data may be retrieved by a third computer system,such as a laptop or desktop computer. The effect of the, data on theliability of a party may be estimated on the third computer system.

FIG. 107 is a flow chart illustrating a method of estimating liabilitythat uses vehicle data recorded on a computer system in a vehicle. Instep 10701, vehicle data may be recorded on a first computer system.Vehicle data may be stored on the first computer system as shown in step10703. The stored vehicle data may be retrieved in step 10705 with asecond computer system. At step 10707, vehicle data may be decoded onthe second computer system. In step 10709, an effect of the data on theliability of a party may be determined. Liability may be estimated on athird computer system.

FIG. 108 illustrates a system for obtaining vehicle data for estimatingthe liability of a party in an accident. Arrows represent transfer ofdata between components of the system. Diagram 10801 illustrates avehicle that has an airbag module installed that is configured to recordvehicle data. An “airbag module” refers to a computer that controlsairbag deployment. Since 1990, airbag modules configured to recordvehicle data were installed in selected General Motors vehicles. Anairbag module configured to record vehicle data may be referred to as a“Sensing and Diagnostic Module” (SDM). The SDM corresponds to the firstcomputer system referred to in step 10701 in FIG. 107. The followingdata may be recorded by the SDM: brake status (5 seconds before impact),change in velocity vs. time for frontal airbag deployment event, enginespeed (5 seconds before impact), maximum change in velocity fornear-deployment event, throttle position (5 seconds before impact), timebetween near-deploy and deploy event (if within 5 seconds), time fromvehicle impact to airbag deployment, time from vehicle impact to time ofmaximum change in velocity, and vehicle speed (5 seconds before impact).

The SDM may record two types of crash events. The first crash event maybe referred to as a “near deployment event.” A “near deployment event”is an event severe enough to initiate a sensing algorithm that initiatesstorage of vehicle data, but not severe enough to deploy the airbag(s).Both pre-crash and crash data may be recorded during a near deploymentevent. The SDM may store up to one near deployment event. The data froma near deployment event may be overwritten by an event with a greaterSDM recorded velocity change.

The second type of SDM recorded crash event may be referred to as a“deployment event.” A “deployment event” may be an event severe enoughto initiate a sensing algorithm and to deploy the airbag(s). The SDM mayalso record both pre-crash and crash data during a deployment event. TheSDM may store up to two different deployment events if the events occurwithin five seconds of one another. The first deployment event, which isthe event that deploys the airbag, may be stored in a deployment file.The second deployment event may be stored in a near deployment file.Deployment events may not be overwritten or cleared from the SDM. Oncethe SDM has deployed the airbag, the SDM may be replaced.

Diagram 10803 in FIG. 108 illustrates an example of a module that mayretrieve vehicle data recorded and stored by the SDM. Diagram 10803 isan illustration of a Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) system manufactured byVetronix Corporation in Santa Barbara, Calif. The CDR includes hardwareand software that retrieves pre- and post-crash data from the airbagmodule of a vehicle. The CDR may correspond to the second computersystem referred to in step 10705 in FIG. 107. The CDR decodes portionsof the data recorded by the SDM using proprietary algorithms. TheWindows® based CDR software may depict the decoded data in graphs andtables. The pre-crash vehicle data that the CDR may provide includesbrake status (on/off) 5 seconds before impact, vehicle speed 5 secondsbefore impact, engine speed 5 seconds before impact, and throttleposition 5 seconds before impact. The post-crash data that the CDRprovides includes change in velocity vs. time for a frontal airbagdeployment event. The decoded vehicle data may be retrieved by laptop10805 or desktop computer 10807 for further analysis. Laptop computer10805 and Desktop computer 10807 in FIG. 108 may include software foranalyzing data obtained from the CDR.

FIG. 109 illustrates vehicle data from the CDR. Column 10901 labeled“Seconds Before AE” is the time in seconds before the crash algorithmwas enabled to store vehicle data. “AE” refers to “algorithm enabled.”Since the algorithm is enabled by a collision, column 10901 representsthe number of seconds before a crash. Column 10903 labeled “VehicleSpeed (MPH)” includes the vehicle speed in miles per hour. Column 10905labeled “Engine Speed (RPM)” includes the speed of the engine inrevolutions per minute. Column 10907 labeled “Throttle Position(percent)” includes the throttle open percent. “100” corresponds to acompletely open throttle. Column 10909 labeled “Brake Switch CircuitStatus” indicates whether or not the brakes are applied in the vehicle.The Brake Switch Circuit status is “OFF” when the brakes are not appliedand “ON” when the brakes are applied.

FIG. 110 is graphical output of the CDR corresponding to the datadepicted in FIG. 109. The abscissa labeled “Approximate Time BeforeAlgorithm Enable (seconds)” corresponds to column 10901 in FIG. 109.Curve 11001 represents the pre-impact vehicle speed in miles per hourand corresponds to column 10903 in FIG. 109. Curve 11003 represents theengine speed in RPM/100 and corresponds to column 10905 in FIG. 109.Curve 11005 represents the throttle position and corresponds to column10907 in FIG. 109. Curve 11007 represents the brake switch circuitstatus and corresponds to column 10909 in FIG. 109.

FIG. 111 is graphical output from the CDR for the post-accident decreasein velocity versus time. Curve 11100 shows that the velocity of thevehicle decreases by almost 30 miles per hour in the first 150milliseconds after the crash.

Assessment of vehicle accident claims may include determining damagesdue to injuries to vehicle occupants. In one embodiment, a method ofassessing a claim in a vehicle accident on a computer system may includeestimating injuries to one or more vehicle occupants in a vehicleaccident. The injuries to the one or more vehicle occupants may beestimated from one or more variables. The variables used to estimate theinjuries may include one or more of the following: impact forces onvehicles in the accident, weight of the vehicles, positions of occupantsin the vehicles, and pre-impact speed of the vehicles in the accident.The impact forces may be estimated from the pre-impact speed and theweight of the vehicles in the accident. In one embodiment, estimatingthe injuries may include determining the type and severity of injuries.Injuries may include damage to soft tissue and bones.

In an embodiment, the pre-impact speed of the vehicles in the accidentmay be estimated from crush damage to the vehicles. Alternatively, thepre-impact speed of one or more of the vehicles in the accident isobtained from data recorded on the one or more vehicles. The data may berecorded, for example, with an airbag diagnostic module.

In one embodiment, WrExpert software developed by Injury Sciences LLC ofSan Antonio, Tex. may be used to estimate injuries in a vehicleaccident. For example, WrExpert may determine the types of injuries in avehicle accident from impact forces on the vehicles, weight of thevehicles, positions of occupants in the vehicles, and pre-impact speedof the vehicles in the accident. The pre-impact speed may be determinedby WrExpert from crush damage of the vehicles.

The method for assessing a claim may further include estimating damagesdue to injuries to one or more injured vehicle occupants. The damagesdue to injuries may depend upon the type and severity of an injury. Thedamages due to injuries may include compensation for medical treatment,lost wages, and pain and suffering. Damages due to injuries may beestimated with a software program called COLOSSUS developed by ComputerSciences Corporation of El Segundo, Calif. COLOSSUS is a comprehensiveknowledge-based system software product used by the insurance industry.COLOSSUS assists the human decision-making process in assessing bodilyinjury claims. Its design includes insurance and medical expertise. Anadjuster is guided through injury evaluation consultations with a seriesof detailed questions relating to a claim. COLOSSUS bases conclusionsupon the severity of actual injuries and provides claims professionalswith a valuation range for each claim. It may evaluate more than 600injuries, for example, a broken arm, pinched nerve, strained back,bruised ribs, and torn muscles.

The method for assessing a claim may further include estimating theliability of the parties in the accident, as described herein. Therelative fault of the parties in the accident may be determined.Adjusted damages due to injuries may be determined from the estimateddamages due to injuries and the liability of the parties. For example,the adjusted damages due to injuries of a vehicle occupant that was in agiven party's vehicle may be determined by reducing the estimateddamages due to injuries of the vehicle occupant by the party'sliability.

In one embodiment, a method of estimating liability for an accident mayinclude estimating pre-impact speeds of one or more vehicles in anaccident from the crush damage of the one or more vehicles. WrExpertsoftware may be used to estimate the impact speed from crush damage of avehicle. The effect of the pre-impact speeds of the vehicles on theliability of parties in the accident may then be estimated.

FIG. 112 is an illustration of one embodiment of assessing a claim.Diagram 11200 represents a software application such as WrExpert, asdescribed above. The steps enclosed by diagram 11200 may be performed byWrExpert. At step 11201 the pre-impact speeds of vehicles in theaccident may be estimated. The impact forces may then be estimated atstep 11203. At step 11205, the injuries to one or more vehicle occupantsmay be estimated from the impact forces. The method continues to step11209 where damages due to injuries of the one or more vehicle occupantsmay be estimated. Step 11209 may be performed by a software program suchas COLOSSUS. The liability of the parties in the accident may beestimated at step 11211. Finally, the adjusted damages due to injuriesmay be determined from the estimated damages due to injuries and theliability of the parties at step 11213.

In a variation of the method illustrated in FIG. 112, the pre-impactspeed of one or more of the vehicles in the accident may be determinedfrom recorded crash data from an SDM on one or more of the vehicles. Theimpact forces may then be estimated at step 11203 from the recordedpre-impact speeds of one or more of the vehicles. The method maycontinue as described above. The results of the variation may becompared to the results from the method described above that usedpre-impact speed estimated from crush damage.

Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects ofthe invention may be apparent to those skilled in the art in view ofthis description. Accordingly, this description is to be construed asillustrative only and is for the purpose of teaching those skilled inthe art the general manner of carrying out the invention. It is to beunderstood that the forms of the invention shown and described hereinare to be taken as the presently preferred embodiments. Elements andmaterials may be substituted for those illustrated and described herein,parts and processes may be reversed, and certain features of theinvention may be utilized independently, all as would be apparent to oneskilled in the art after having the benefit of this description of theinvention. Changes may be made in the elements described herein withoutdeparting from the spirit and scope of the invention as described in thefollowing claims.

1. A method of estimating liability for a vehicle accident using a computer system, comprising: retrieving vehicle data from a memory of a computer system; estimating at least one stopping distance of a vehicle based at least in part on the retrieved vehicle data, wherein a stopping distance is an approximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed to stop; estimating a perception distance based at least in part on the retrieved vehicle data, wherein a perception distance is an approximate distance between a location of the vehicle when a driver of the vehicle first sensed danger of the accident and a location where the vehicle accident ultimately occurs; the computer system comparing the estimated perception distance to at least one estimated stopping distance to determine whether the estimated stopping distance at the specified speed is less than the estimated perception distance; assessing an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident based at least in part on the comparison of the estimated perception distance to the at least one estimated stopping distance, wherein assessing an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises determining that the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident if the stopping distance at the specified speed is less than the estimated perception distance; the computer system estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident, wherein estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident comprises: estimating an increase in liability if it is determined that the driver of the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident based on the stopping distance at the specified speed being less than the estimated perception distance; and estimating no increase in liability if it is not determined that the driver had an opportunity to avoid the accident based on the comparison of the stopping distance to the estimated perception distance; and storing the estimated effect on liability in a memory of the computer system.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the specified speed comprises an actual speed.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the specified speed comprises a speed limit.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the specified speed comprises a safe speed.
 5. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising: a CPU; a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for estimating liability, for a vehicle accident, the method comprising: estimating at least one stopping distance of a vehicle, wherein a stopping distance is an approximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed to stop; estimating a perception distance, wherein a perception distance is an approximate distance between a location of the vehicle when a driver of the vehicle first sensed danger of the accident and a location where the vehicle accident ultimately occurs; comparing the estimated perception distance to at least one estimated stopping distance to determine whether the estimated stopping distance at the specified speed is less than the estimated perception distance; assessing an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident based at least in part on the comparison of the estimated perception distance to the at least one estimated stopping distance, wherein assessing an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises determining that the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident if the stopping distance at the specified speed is less than the estimated perception distance; and estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident, wherein estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident comprises: estimating an increase in liability if it is determined that the driver of the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident based on the stopping distance at the specified speed being less than the estimated perception distance; and estimating no increase in liability if it is not determined that the driver had an opportunity to avoid the accident based on the comparison of the stopping distance to the estimated perception distance.
 6. A computer readable memory medium comprising program instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for estimating liability for a vehicle accident, the method comprising: estimating at least one stopping distance of a vehicle, wherein a stopping distance is an approximate distance for the vehicle traveling at a specified speed to stop; estimating a perception distance, wherein a perception distance is an approximate distance between a location of the vehicle when driver of the vehicle first sensed danger of the accident and a location where the vehicle accident ultimately occurs; comparing the estimated perception distance to at least one estimated stopping distance to determine whether the estimated stopping distance at the specified speed is less than the estimated perception distance; assessing an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident based at least in part on the comparison of the estimated perception distance to the at least one estimated stopping distance, wherein assessing an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises determining that the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident if the stopping distance at the specified speed is less than the estimated perception distance; and estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident, wherein estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident comprises: estimating an increase in liability if it is determined that the driver of the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the accident based on the stopping distance at the specified speed being less than the estimated perception distance; and estimating no increase in liability if it is not determined that the driver had an opportunity to avoid the accident based on the comparison of the stopping distance to the estimated perception distance.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein assessing the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises assessing whether a vehicle may have stopped before the accident at the specified speed.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the specified speed for at least one estimated stopping distance is the vehicle's actual speed, wherein the method further comprises applying a factor shift if the stopping distance estimated using the vehicle's actual speed is less than the perception distance.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein assessing the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises assessing whether it is likely that the vehicle, at the actual speed, would have come to a complete stop if the vehicle had braked with full force when the other vehicle was first noticed.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the specified speed for at least one estimated stopping distance is a speed limit, wherein the method further comprises applying a factor shift if the stopping distance estimated using the speed limit is less than the perception distance.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein assessing the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises assessing whether it is likely that the vehicle, if traveling at the speed limit, would have come to a complete stop if the vehicle had braked with full force when the other vehicle was first noticed.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the specified speed for at least one estimated stopping distance is a safe speed, wherein the method further comprises applying a factor shift if the stopping distance estimated using the safe speed is less than the perception distance.
 13. The method of claim 12, wherein assessing the opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises assessing whether it is likely that the vehicle, if traveling at the safe speed, would have come to a complete stop if the vehicle had braked with full force when the other vehicle was first noticed.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the specified speed for at least one estimated stopping distance is a safe speed, wherein the method further comprises applying a factor shift if the estimated stopping distance estimated using the safe speed is less than the perception distance, and not applying a factor shift if the stopping distance estimated using the safe speed is equal to or greater than the perception distance.
 15. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating at least one stopping distance of the vehicle comprises: estimating a stopping distance for the vehicle traveling at the actual speed; and estimating a stopping distance for the vehicle traveling at a safe speed, and wherein comparing the estimated perception distance to at least one estimated stopping distance comprises: comparing the estimated perception distance to estimated stopping distance at the actual speed; and comparing the estimated perception distance to estimated stopping distance at the safe speed.
 16. The method of claim 1, wherein comparing the estimated perception distance to at least one estimated stopping distance comprises assessing whether the stopping distance at a safe speed is greater than or equal to the estimated perception distance, wherein assessing an opportunity of the vehicle to avoid the accident comprises determining that a driver of the vehicle did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident if the stopping distance at the safe speed is greater than or equal to the estimated perception distance, and wherein estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident comprises estimating no increase in liability if it is determined that the driver did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident.
 17. The method of claim 1, further comprising: assessing a factor shift, wherein the factor shift comprises a value that increases liability of the driver of the vehicle if it is determined that the vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the vehicle accident, and applying the factor shift to increase an estimated liability of the driver of the vehicle.
 18. The method of claim 17, wherein assessing a factor shift comprises retrieving a first factor shift value from a memory if the specified speed comprises an actual speed and the perception distance is greater than the stopping distance associated with the actual speed, retrieving a second factor shift value from a memory if the specified speed comprises a speed limit and the perception distance is greater than the stopping distance associated with the speed limit, retrieving a third factor shift value from a memory if the specified speed comprises a safe speed and the perception distance is greater than the stopping distance associated with the safe speed, or retrieving a fourth factor shift value from a memory if the specified speed comprises the safe speed and the perception distance is equal to or less than the stopping distance associated with the safe speed, wherein each of the retrieved first, second, third and fourth factor shift values are predetermined based on a relationship between the specified speed, the perception distance and the stopping distance.
 19. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating an effect on liability based on the opportunity to avoid the accident comprises: assessing a specified speed factor shift, wherein the value of specified speed factor shift is based on the specified speed of the vehicle is based on a contribution to liability based on the specified speed of the vehicle; assessing a reaction factor shift, wherein the value of the reaction factor shift based on reaction is based on whether the vehicle reacted by braking to avoid the accident; assessing an outcome factor shift, wherein the value of the outcome factor shift based on outcome is based on whether the vehicle had an opportunity to stop, delay or maintain a specified speed to avoid the accident; and applying a sum of the factor shifts to estimate an effect on liability. 